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)

New timeline of Class I railroads (North America)

I just finished a timeline of Class I railroads in three parts (due to size): 1910-1929, 1930-1976, 1977-present. It's certainly not complete; I listed the most serious omissions at Talk:Timeline of Class I railroads (1910-1929). If you know any of these or see anything else missing, please help, but make sure your information is correct, and try to keep it to mainly physical changes that affected the entire system of a railroad or former railroad. (Regulatory changes such as Staggers could make up another whole list!) If anyone has access to volumes of the "Annual Report on the Statistics of Railways in the United States", please let me know and I'll see if you can help.

Hopefully this will be of use in clarifying historical matters. --NE2 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic photos available

Adapted from WT:SHIPS
New Zealand's Alexander Turnbull Library has placed some historic NZ photos on Flickr The Commons with no known copyright restrictions. These include some of New Zealand railways. Very easy to upload to commons using the Flickr tools. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Images should be tagged {{PD-NZ}} and added to commons:Category:Images from the New Zealand National Library. Gwinva (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Railway

I have nominated Canadian Pacific Railway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Future public transportation templates

All the {future ____ public transportation} templates ({{future australian public transportation}}, etc) are being replaced by {{future public transportation|country= }} (see discussion at Template talk:Future public transportation). Is it ok if I collapse the list of templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Valencia historical trains/trams

I have uploaded several scanned slides on the regional meter gauge trains around Valencia. These pictures where taken in 1981 and 1987. See (Commons:Category:Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana). These pics where taken partly in the FEVE period. (With the FEVE logos) There are several issues:

• These where taken at the narrow gauge station on the North side off the city. I dont know the name of it. Now the trams make a U-turn at the same location.

• I dont know anything about these types of train. A description would be usefull. Some may even be from pre FEVE times.

• I dont know any Spanish, but a Spanish description would be usefull.

• The Category is unclear: Does the "FGV" refer to railway company running these trains now -or- To the railways in the Generalitat Valencia? In the first case I would put these pictures under the FEVE category (and maybe create a FEVE subcategory) In the second case I can leave things as now.

Greetings,

Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied to WT:SPAIN Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

stnlnk vs rws templates

Just found that there is a {{rws}} template that seems to do the same job as {{stnlnk}} in displaying station names. Necessary duplication?

EdJogg (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the new one to the old one. Simply south (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJogg (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues with VIA FP9ARM picture article - Need a third party resolution

I received a message from 67.193.221.128 who blatantly accused me of "Shameless Self-Promotion" over this image that I grabbed from flickr (the person I uploaded from isn't me near the begining of April. Thinking the response was just a troll, I responded likewise, reverted, and went on with my life. Now I have User:Jsp3970, who is also accusing me of "shameless self-promotion," and uploaded his own pic to "stop a possible revert war." Again, I "commented" and reverted it back. Now I have 67.193.221.128 again undoing my edits, and thats when I noticed something.

File:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg, which I "replaced" with my flickr find, was taken by User:Jsp3970. It's about a year apart, and the size differences is...great.

Now I want this to end. I would like a third opinion on the matter. According to the Wikipedia:Image_use_policy under Rules of thumb, #3 states: Upload a high-resolution version of your image whenever possible. Comparing File:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg and this image, yes, the handcart should've been outta the way, but still, you can see the difference. The focus should be on improving the article, and I feel my Flickr find helps by allowing viewers to see a FP(ARM in the best picture possible in the article (of course, I do invite Jsp3970 to contribute better quality FP9ARM pics if he can to beat the one I got; no shame). --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Contacted those involved as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:VIA GM FP9.jpg is clearly preferable to File:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg. No comment on the interpersonal dispute (because I can't be arsed to read through it). --NE2 09:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that - the choice is between File:VIA Rail FP9ARM 6303.jpg and File:VIA GM FP9.jpg. I'm not a diesel expert, but I'd say the 6309 photo has better lighting and shows the locomotive better. --NE2 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with NE2 -- I'm not an American diesel fan (I mean, I'm not a great fan of American diesels!) but File:VIA GM FP9.jpg is certainly the best of the three. Note that if all three were placed in Commons (where they should be) a commonscat link would allow immediate access to the other pictures from the article. (And yes, I have checked and seen who has bothered to put them there already!)

EdJogg (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with EdJogg; likewise, I've no great interest in North American diesels, but (the handcart aside) the 6309 photo is better lit and illustrates the overall shape of the loco far more clearly. – iridescent 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind showing everybody where on the list Jsp3970's image is? Because I don't see it where the tag says it is. Granted your image is of higher quality, but that doesn't mean the other one should be dumped over an edit war whether he started it or you started it. I agree with EdJogg. They should all be placed in the commons. ----DanTD (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential legal threat made against me --NE2 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian Railways

Ladies and gentlemen, while you're working on nuisances such as British_Rail_Class_24, the article on the busiest, largest and arguably most important railway system in Europe, with thousands of locos and hundreds of thousands of employees, remains a miserable stub for more than 2 years. Thank you for your attention. Ukrained (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you writing an article. I know nothing about Ukrainian railways so I wouldn't even try. This is the English language Wikipedia, so by definition we get more people working on articles about English-speaking countries because people generally work on articles about their local area. For what it's worth, Germany (33,897 km, 74.73 billion passenger/km) and France (29,488 km, 78.46 billion passenger/km) both have larger and busier systems than Ukraine (21,891 km, 53.23 billion passenger/km). – iridescent 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean passenger/kilometres not passengers per kilometre. Otherwise, yes Ukrained should get some like minded freinds and improve the article. The encyclopedia anyone can edit, remember? Britmax (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, now fixed – 78 billion passengers per km would be fairly impressive.. But yes, what Britmax says – improve the article. It needs to be pointed out that the Ukrainian and Russian versions of this article are equally poor quality, despite them presumably having far more sources to draw on than we do. – iridescent 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd just add a general hint regarding Wikipedia etiquette to user Ukrained and suggest that if you want an article improved, asking like this probably won't help your cause. In a few short lines you've combined a "cry wolf" heading (ie 'IMPORTANT NOTICE'? Why is your point more important everyone else's?), you've the insulted BR loco article editors, made gratuitous use of caps and bold, and ignored the order of the talk page to slap your request at the top of the page. I'm hardly encouraged to expand the article after a request like that. Zzrbiker (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

) I was just trying to draw Wikipedians' attention to an evident misprioritization here, not to insult anybody. Articles on both French and German railways are developed far beyond Ukrainian one. I thought this is an All Trains Wikiproject, dedicated to all railways, not British Trains or EU Trains. Not to mention that UA railways are one of Europe's important "bottlenecks". Sad to say, but users who got me wrong are just not good in prioritizing their Wikiefforts:) Thank you for your time, Ukrained (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Those who work for corporations in exchange for a wage can be exhorted to "prioritise their efforts". I didn't get where I am today without prioritising my efforts, Reggie. ("Great! Super!")

However a realistic fact about this project is that people here are unpaid volunteers and pretty much set their own agenda. There is no systematic way of sweeping through all the subjects in the world; we cover the things we know about, care about and/ or are curious about (and sometimes these areas overlap). If you tried to impose plans on these people some of them would just disappear, while others would ask for payment then disappear. The model railway writer Cyril Freezer once wrote, "people who say 'someone should do something about this' ought to be reminded that they are also 'someone'.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago. Britmax (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR of BC Rail

I have nominated BC Rail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Future public transportation

This is up for deletion. In my opinion i find it a very important template, although it could be reworded according to comments on the deletion page. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Future public transportation. The scope possibly also encompasses other related articles. Simply south (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Boiler problems

Boiler is rated at "High" importance within this Wikiproject, and has been selected as appropriate for the WP 0.7 DVD (and is therefore regarded as among the most important articles in the encyclopaedia) yet it is only rated 'start' class.

For some time I have been aware of the problems with the boiler article. It is still a mish-mash of water-heating and steam-generating tasks, without really covering either effectively, nor making the distinctions between the two functions clear. The article is not well-structured and really needs re-building to a form that matches its importance as a 'main' article.

In recent months the picture has been complicated by the creation of boiler (steam generator) in an effort to resolve the problems mentioned. Unfortunately, this is also in need of much the same work, and as an added problem, duplicates much of the 'steam-generating' material in boiler. In an effort to move things along, I have started a discussion about a proposed (re-)merge of boiler and boiler (steam generator) (see Talk:Boiler#Proposed Merge) and would welcome other editors' views.

Andy Dingley has made huge progress in creating and bringing up-to-scratch articles on the many sub-types of boiler (mostly sub-types of the fire-tube boiler) and is continuing with his excellent work when time permits. I have been helping out where I can (although I know little about the subject); but neither of us feel qualified to tackle the re-build.

Is there anyone around who feels they can take this on? Or at the very least, can propose a new structure for the articles that we can work on collectively?

EdJogg (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Canada class 2

Template:Canada class 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NE2 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Railway Signalling Template

The Railway signalling template Template:Railwaysignalling has a section for interlockings, which currently lists at least 3 interlockings (Lever frame • Solid State Interlocking • Westlock Interlocking - "Signal box" is also listed but I don't think that counts). I am aware of a number of other interlocking products/types - e.g. relay (free wired or WESTPAC style).

The Interlocking page mentions four types of interlocking: Mechanical interlocking, Electro-mechanical interlocking, Relay interlocking, Electronic interlocking.

1a. Is the list in the template supposed to be a list of interlocking products, types of interlocking or both? 1b. Should "Signal Box" be removed?

2. Should there be separate articles to cover such things as Relay interlocking, Electronic interlocking etc?

3. Should there be separate articles to cover various interlocking products?

4. I have a little knowledge about interlocking and can create paragraph size stubs to cover a number of interlocking products and/or types. Is this useful?

Mdt3k (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is tricky. I felt a bit uneasy when the Westlock link was added to the template, because I thought it might open the floodgates to having every interlocking product on the market listed. That is clearly not practicable.

The four generic types of interlocking you've listed probably don't justify having their own articles at present - they are adequately dealt with as sections within the interlocking article. They could be split into separate articles later if enough information was added to justify it.

A fair point, I will see if I can add anything meaningful to the interlockings article Mdt3k (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As regards the template, I wonder whether there's another word that could replace "Interlockings" as a section heading, that would cover the articles "Signal box", "Interlocking" and "Lever frame", etc. Something along the lines of "Control Centres", maybe? (I realise that interlockings can be remote from the signal box/control centre, but it's just an idea.) –Signalhead ^< T > 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the old issues of Trains have introductory "ABC's of railroading" columns. One of them (June 1994) includes interlockings, and is about train movement authority in general. Also described are CTC, Rule 251, TWC, DTC, Form D, and yard limits, as well as how track workers are protected. It might make sense to combine "Systems" with "Interlockings" and "Train protection", and then split it based on whether the article is about a type or implementation. --NE2 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my hand up to adding Westlock to the template as SSI was there, which is what prompted my appearance here. If it's not intended to be a product list, perhaps it would be best merged into one of the other sections as NE2 suggests? I think a list of products is a reasonable thing to document, provided they've got an article to describe them. Mdt3k (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

MBTA Providence/Stoughton Line glitch

I see a problem with the western terminus of the Stoughton Branch of the MBTA Providence/Stoughton Line, most notably in the article on Canton Center (MBTA station). It still includes Providence (MBTA station) as one of the two termini, when it should only include Stoughton (MBTA station). Meanwhile, every station between Sharon (MBTA station) and South Attleboro (MBTA station) only has Providence as the western terminus. I tried to looks for the template on this, but I can't find any MBTA templates. ----DanTD (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LACMTA Expo Line page title

Was checking out the page to get some updates on construction, when it struck me that this page is named inconsistantly with other LACMTA Metrorail articles. Other articles use a Metro X Line (LACMTA) format. I was thinking that the article should be moved to Metro Expo Line (LACMTA) for consistancy, but wanted input before making such a move.oknazevad (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Expo Line (LACMTA)? --NE2 07:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd still be inconsistant with the rest of the Metrorail articles, though, all of which follow the same format.oknazevad (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Decided to Be Bold and moved the page to Metro Expo Line (LACMTA).oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)