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

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.

Fréjus/Mont Cenis Railway

Despite the line having been projected as Chambéry-Modane-Turin in what was initially a single country, there are two different articles for the French and Italian part of the line. Furthermore the first article makes confusion between the Chambéry-Modane-Turin and the Mont Cenis Pass Railway, giving wrong links (the interwiki link on the left leads to the Mont Cenis Pass Railway fr.wiki article, the link called "Mont Cenis Pass Railway" in the main text leads to the Fréjus tunnel article). I think both articles should be merged, as they describe what was historically a single railway. Finally a clear dinstinction should be made between the "Mont Cenis" and "Fréjus" names, they are two different mountain passes: the confusion is created because the Chambéry-Modane-Turin cross the Alps under the Fréjus pass, but is often called "Mont Cenis railway" because it replaced the Mont Cenis railway and road, which is some dozen of kilometres away from the Fréjus pass. I hope this is clear...any comment? Coccodrillo (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fréjus railway article appears to have begun life as a translation of its it.wiki equivalent, and the Mont Cenis Railway as a brand new article. The former describes the section of the overall railway that is now in Italy, and the latter describes what is now in France. I would suggest that they be left as two separate articles. However, I agree that there should be some co-ordination of them. At the very least, each should have a "See also" section with a link to the other article. It would also be desirable for the text of each to state clearly that the relevant article describes only a section of a single overall railway.

Finally, I agree that there are several problems with the Mont Cenis Railway article. One problem is that the article is wrongly named. It should be named "Maurienne railway" (or similar) and interwikilinked with fr:Ligne de la Maurienne. A second problem is that the fr:Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis article has no en.wiki equivalent, and therefore should not be interwikilinked to en.wiki at all. A solution to both of these problems would be to create a new article named "Maurienne railway" (or similar) as a translation of the fr.wiki article about that railway, and then rewrite the Mont Cenis Railway article as a translation of the fr.wiki Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis article. I would be happy to do both of these jobs, but I can't start immediately, because I'm presently working on another project. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If we decide to keep the two articles separate we will have to choose entirely new names (as Mont Cenis and Fréjus are, in the case of the railway, quite synonyms), and decide where to split the line, like "Maurienne railway". But where should we split the line? At the border station of Modane or in the middle of the Fréjus tunnel? But I still think we should consider it a single line, just like the Brenner railway (plus an article for the Mont Cenis Pass railway). Coccodrillo (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the logic of what you are suggesting. However, the problem is that it.wiki already has an article about the Italian part of the line, and fr.wiki already has an article about the French part of the line. If we were to continue with two articles in en.wiki, we could interwikilink one of them with the it.wiki article and the other one with the fr.wiki article. So I think it would be sensible to continue with two articles. From what I can gather, the place where the voltage changes from Italian 3,000 V to French 1,500 V is Modane. I therefore also think that Modane should be the place where each article should end. How about naming one article "Turin–Modane railway" and the other one "Culoz–Modane railway"? That would mean that both articles would have unambiguous names that conform with standard practices for naming en.wiki articles about railway lines. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling the two articles "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane" is as you suggest is accettable, but then where should we redirect "Fréjus railway" and "Mont Cenis Railway"? Make a redirect only to one half of the line would still be incorrect. As I speak French and Italian, I could ask on the other Wiki what to do. After merging the two halves of the lines on the three fr-it-en.wiki I could then translate the missing parts on each wiki (Turin-Modane oin fr.wiki, Culoz-Modane on it.wiki). The merged article should be named "Fréjus Railway", plus the article about the Mont Cenis Pass Line. Coccodrillo (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If we have two articles "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane", then "Fréjus railway" and "Mont Cenis Railway" could both be disambiguation pages linking to both "Turin-Modane" and "Culoz-Modane", and, in the latter case, also to "Mont Cenis Pass Railway". But a more satisfactory solution would be for there to be one article about the whole line on each of the three wikis (en.wiki, fr.wiki and it.wiki), plus an article about the Mont Cenis Pass Railway, as you have suggested. I look forward to hearing from you about the responses to your enquiries on the other wikis. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On it.wiki the two replies I received are for keeping them separated, as they consider the line as two projects built separately and then linked. On the other hand the two books and one article about the railway I have found consider them as a single line. Coccodrillo (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Five articles? French line, Italian line, Fell railway, tunnel, and overall railway. But what do your books call the single line? If "Mont Cenis Railway", then you could use that name to cover the historical bits, ie the Fell Railway, and the overall project, including the (mostly Italian) diversion to the tunnel (or was it the mostly French diversion to the Pass?). Each article should start with links to the others (probably). Tim PF (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have renamed Mont Cenis Railway as Culoz–Modane railway, and at least temporarily made the Mont Cenis Railway page a redirect to Mont Cenis Pass Railway, which I have transformed from a redirect page (to Fréjus Rail Tunnel) into a new stub article. I have also renamed Fréjus railway as Turin–Modane railway, and at least temporarily made the Fréjus railway page a redirect to "Fréjus Rail Tunnel". I have corrected the interwiki links for the two articles I have renamed, and will shortly be correcting the links from the "what links here" pages. In the near future, I will also transform the Mont Cenis Pass Railway stub article into what might be described as a blended translation of fr:Chemin de Fer du Mont-Cenis and it:Ferrovia del Moncenisio. When I've completed that task (I'll do it some time between now and the end of February), we'll have articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the meantime, we can discuss what should be the name and content of article 5 ... Bahnfrend (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, except: Should it be Mont Cenis Pass Railway or Mont Cenis Pass railway? If the latter, then at least the link from Turin–Modane railway will work, but I think we need either an additional redirect or a move (with auto-redirect). Tim PF (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the part concerning the Mont Cenis Pass Railway from Culoz–Modane railway, but adding a link to it. Coccodrillo (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sixth article? The "Modane train disaster" is listed at List of accidents and disasters by death toll‎ and in all this renaming was pointing to "Fréjus Rail Tunnel#1917 accident" which is now of course "Turin–Modane railway#1917 accident", and there was no such link, anchor or even information. But the accident was at Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne as nicely detailed on the French version at fr:Accident ferroviaire de Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne, and so is on the Culoz–Modane railway.

Should we have a sixth article called Modane train disaster or Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail accident or Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail crash (1917), or do we just move the existing details from the Italian to the French line articles? We could leave it alone. We could also work out if the French deliberatly underestimate the number of dead (entre 425 et 700 morts), or if the English version exagerates (only 425 of the 800-1000 troops killed could be identified).

In the meantime, I've put an {{anchor}} tag in Culoz–Modane railway with a see also back to "Turin–Modane railway#1917 accident", and changed the original link so that it hits the anchor (on a good day). Tim PF (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The accident details should be written in the French part. I tried also to explain in each of the two half-articles the history of the various names of the railway (Fréjus, Mont Cenis, Maurienne). Coccodrillo (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I'd agree that it belongs to the French line, not the Italian line, I also note that most of the other high death toll rail crashes have their own, if stubby, articles, the French version of this is about as long as the longest of our existing four, plus it would be easier to create the interwiki link. My French isn't good enough for a translation (although I do follow most of the article), so I'm not going to create one anytime soon.

There are already several redirect pages with names like Fréjus railway accident, Fréjus rail accident, Frejus rail accident. I'm adopting Fréjus railway accident as a redirect page for the moment, pointing to Turin–Modane railway#1917 accident for now with a comment that This is liable to change to Culoz–Modane railway#1917 accident or a separate article. I'll try to sort out the redirects to all use this page. Tim PF (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections creating a separate article for this accident, if you think it is worth it. We will then put a link on the French half-article. Coccodrillo (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate article about the 1917 accident. The most appropriate name for the separate article would appear to be Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment - see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Train_wreck. The existing redirect pages could just be amended to redirect to an article bearing that name. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed your comment at the time. I'd be quite happy to go with Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment, but the naming convention might also allow "disaster", and appears to be worse than the near contemporary Quintinshill rail disaster; that would make it the Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail disaster (with one redirecting to the other).

I've already done some consolidation of redirects, but didn't want to do too much until a final name was agreed upon. I'd keep the Fréjus railway accident as plain redirect, and then try to get rid of all the others, including going back to the articles that use weird names like "Modane train disaster". Tim PF (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I grasped the nettle and created Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment from the "1917 accident" section of this version of "Turin–Modane railway". I decided not to use the title Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne rail disaster at the moment, as the French version was renamed last July from fr:Catastrophe ferroviaire de Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne to fr:Accident ferroviaire de Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne as catastrophe n'apporte rien par rapport à accident, which my French isn't good enough to fully understand. It still carries the redirect, but I'll do the English one later if someone doesn't do it first. Tim PF (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

BART S-line templates

User:Gfoley4 has been trying to fix the S-line templates for Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, but none of his fixes have worked. I tried to use some Chicago 'L' S-Lines as an example of what could be done, but that hasn't worked either. Can somebody else fix what he has been trying to do? While you're at it, send him a message to invite him to the discussion. ----DanTD (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagram looks fine. I would suggest moving it out of the lede and into the "History" section so that it does not interact with the TOC. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The Richmond–Millbrae line splits, and he wanted to make the template reflect this. I tried to help, but it didn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Our problem is, we don't know which templates you are having trouble with. You mention both Bay Area Rapid Transit and Richmond–Millbrae line, but neither has been edited by User:Gfoley4, and both contain several templates. Which are the specific ones with difficulties? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So I'm trying to make the s-line right terminus be "Millbrae or Daly City" (because the Richmond-Millbrae Line ends at Daly City during nights and Saturdays). But, as you can see at Richmond Station (California), it shows as Millbrae or Daly City (BART station). I have created an entry at {{BART stations}} but that didn't seem to work. FYI, the template that controls the terminus is here. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't know, the {{s-line}} template is the template that says which stations are next. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody home? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm home. I'm just ignoring this thread, because now that I know that you mean the {{s-line}} group, and its usage in Richmond Station (California), I really don't want to investigate it in any detail, and was hoping that others would. That template group is far too complicated for its own good, what with all the subtemplates. You've got one system, for which you seem to need four templates: {{BART color}}; {{BART lines}}; {{BART stations}}; and {{BART style}}, of which I see one is a redlink and therefore missing. You also have two lines, requiring {{S-line/BART right/Orange}} and {{S-line/BART right/Red}} in Richmond Station (California) (the pairs being completed by {{S-line/BART left/Orange}} and {{S-line/BART left/Red}} - and since there are three other lines, you could need {{S-line/BART left/Green}}; {{S-line/BART left/Yellow}}; {{S-line/BART left/Blue}}; {{S-line/BART right/Green}}; {{S-line/BART right/Yellow}}; and {{S-line/BART right/Blue}} also). Whether these fourteen are set up properly or not I don't know; why all of these are necessary I also don't know.

I much prefer routeboxes like this where there are no hidden subtemplates to worry about. This example has three rail companies, each of which has one template which is specific to that company. These templates are specified right there in the edit box ({{XC colour}}, {{FGW colour}} and {{SWT colour}}), and there's no mucking around with subtemplates. As their names suggest, they're used to obtain the colour values, but the routebox would work perfectly well using six-character colour values instead of templates. Much easier to set up. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Identification, etc. would be welcome

Skagit Railway train in snow

Really nice photo I just found (released by Seattle Municipal Archive) and uploaded to Commons. We don't have an article on this railway (and probably should). Also, someone more knowledgeable than I can probably add a bunch of relevant categories about that locomotive. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Descendant of WikiProject Civil engineering?

Could this project be classified as a descendant? --trevj (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, railways are just as much mechanical as civil engineering, so if we're to become a sub-project of the civils, we must also become a sub-project of the mechanicals. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My only apprehension would be screwing up our various conventions if the Civil Engineering project's are too different. But I don't know about the CivEng project's conventions to really object. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in WP:CEng but work in civil engineering and believe that trains are no less relevant than highways, etc. Is there a WikiProject Mechanical Engineering? There's always WP:ENGR anyway. --trevj (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any hierarchy to WikiProjects, except perhaps where there is an obvious country-specific sub-project (eg UK railways). WP:CEng consider 'WP:Transport' as a child project, but surely only WP:Transport-Infrastructure would be appropriate, similarly WP:Railway-Infrastructure? A parent-child hierarchy implies some kind of authority/control relationship between the two projects, which is clearly absent (and unnecessary). -- EdJogg (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Another unidentified location

Does that say "Glen Falls?"

User:Jmabel asked about the location of one image, now I'm asking about another. I'm not sure about the location, but when I zoomed in on it, I could barely make out the word "Glen Falls," and the only word I'm most certain of is the word "Glen." Can anybody else figure out where this could be? ----DanTD (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I can make out "Glen" and a "F" for the first letter of the second word. I can figure out anything besides that. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 15:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Could it be Glens Falls, New York? The Delaware and Hudson Railway used to go through there, and this site [1] suggests that they had a variety of depots there over the years. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The thought had crossed my mind, but there's the issue of the word "Glen" without an "s," and the history of the stations in Glens Falls at the link you've showed us. Plus, there's something about this old nearby D&H station which is a little more elaborate than the one shown here. ----DanTD (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's an actual waterfall called GLEN Falls in Williamsville, NY (near Buffalo), and some quick googling suggests that there may have been a depot there named Glen Falls at some time, but nothing conclusive. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The location is Glen Ellyn, IL, see here or here. Also see this photo shot from the opposite direction. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And I found it here too. ----DanTD (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A question on scope of an article

I'm looking to expand the article on the Virginia and Truckee Railroad. Right now the article is almost exclusively focused on the current incarnation of the V&T as a Heritage Railroad. Would fleshing it out with the full history of the original line be appropriate scope for this article, or would it be better in a separate one? Especially considering that the original V&T used the term Railway for its name, whereas the modern uses Railroad. I just want to make sure that whatever I do makes sense. Rails (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to put them both in the same article - it's not overly long. Maybe you could get a nice historical flow. As long as the railway variant of the name redirects to the railroad variant (and it does), I'm happy.

If, in future, the article got really long & confusing - especially if there turns out to be little commonality apart from the name and location - then it might be a good idea to split them apart, but for now I think a split would be confusing.

Good luck, and have fun writing! bobrayner (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rail car

The rail car article is currently a straight redirect to "railcar", but it appears that quite a few referencing articles mean "railroad car". I've already altered the railcars redirect page to add a "railroad car" option, and edited many of the referencing pages to hit the correct page, but there were not very many. Changing "rail car" to be a disambiguation page pointing to both "railcar" and "railroad car" might be useful, but I guess that quite a lot of articles erroneously link direct to "railcar" by mistake. Any suggestions? Tim PF (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I wonder if the problem here is that editors are using "rail car" to avoid saying "railroad car" so it sounds internationally acceptable. However in doing so they fall into the trap of creating a term that doesn't exist and causing confusion with "railcar" which does and has a different meaning as you rightly point out. I will do some further research and see if there's a way round this. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What about turning Rail car into a dab page? Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The linguistic issue is that American English uses "rail" and "railroad" more or less interchangeably, rarely preferring one to the exclusion to the other. So there's nothing wrong with "rail car" as a term. Anyway, I've gone through the relatively few cases using "rail car" and straightened most of them out, though there are a few left where the intent was unclear. teh bigger problem is probably railcar itself, which has a lot more references than make sense at first glance. I think it needs to hatnote back to "railroad car". Mangoe (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with making it a dab page (as previously written), and I had thought about a hatnote in railcar, but I've not done many of those yet. Well over 100 links are from Template:Rail vehicles of New Zealand (including a redirect from Template:NZR Locomotives; would it help to see the trees from the forest if the link in that template was temporarily suppressed? Tim PF (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (It would be a nice feature if you could hide links from templates.)

I would go further and remove three of the four links from Template:Rail vehicles of New Zealand, permanently. I think it unlikely that many users will get to the bottom line of the template at the bottom of a page before thinking 'I wonder what a railcar is?'. The NZ-specific link is fine, though.

Remember that the list of links may take some time (hours->days) to reflect the changes and reduce in size. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've commented out those last three pesky links (sleep), converted rail car to a {{disambiguation}} page, and had a shot at adding a hatnote to railcar. Tim PF (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Template is much neater -- you don't miss those links. Have also: tweaked the text on rail car and adjusted the format (nearer standard DAB -- think it's still OK); added link to railcar in the lede of railroad car; pruned the hatnote on railcar, as I couldn't see the purpose of the second link to the same page. Feel free to adjust further as you see fit. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume you mean Template:Rail vehicles of New Zealand, and not the other three I also adjusted yesterday (Template:Bavarian locomotives, Template:DRG locomotives and Template:Prussian locomotives), as opposed to the few more that I considered, but didn't do. I agree with your earlier comment that it would be much nicer if there was a fourth option on the "What links here" page to hide those also.

I've no problems with your change to rail car, or the removal of the third option of railcar's hatnote (which I had cribbed from the 3 option one I wrote a week or so ago for Bathroom, and just left the American catch all in); we both left in the 2nd link at the end of the lead, so that should be fine.

I forgot to consider changes to railroad car itself, and your change was definitely required, thankyou. But I wonder if it also needs something like "in the US, it is often referred to more simply as a rail car or railcar, but this should not be confused with the self-propelled railcar". Especially as it has links to Rail car mover and Rail car tracking device. Tim PF (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added your comment to railroad car as a footnote, as it won't fit comfortably within the lede. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A pity, but a footnote looks ok, and at least it's there, thanks. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of the third paragraph in Bathroom, which has been there a long time, and is one of the few paragraphs I haven't touched, although it was my inspiration for the hatnote. Tim PF (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it is quite clearly written, although it might give undue prominence to the American usage over other aspects of bathrooms -- it's possible that that paragraph should be in the regional variations section instead. Needing to mention that Americans use the terms 'railroad car', 'rail car', and 'railcar' interchangeably is, I suggest, less significant than the different meaning of 'bathroom'. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But I don't think it is undue prominence that the other US uses of the term, which have other articles, are firmly booted into the long grass, but also explains to non-Americans that it is used as a euphamism. 'Railcar' is similar in that non-Americans may be confused by the US usage for both powered and non-powered vehicles (I was the other day), but Americans will end up at railcar or a dab page. There may be a few cases where non-americans follow a link that links to railcar when it is not meant, but I think we've made good progress to lessen those possibilities, especially once we can see past those templates. Tim PF (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename of Template:Infobox station

{{Infobox station}} has been proposed for renaming; see Template talk:Infobox station#Rename proposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rail lines in Utah

Category:Rail lines in Utah has been nominated for deletion; please see the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Train Engine with Locomotive

Railfans, I request your help. There is a very old merge tag on the page Train engine, suggesting a merge to Locomotive. Please comment at Talk:Train engine D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This was done (without much discussion) by bobrayner (talk), and I tidied it up so that it has its own sub-section. Tim PF (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it'd been tagged for three years; four different editors wanted the article shifted; and there was no sign of dissent. So, I doubt there would have been much to gain from sitting around and talking about it a bit longer Be bold, and all that. Thanks for the extra cleanup. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment. I did consider reverting your edits, and that could still be done after my tidy up should someone dissent. Tim PF (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting. If you also felt that shifting the article would be an improvement, then reverting could have been a bit counterproductive. If anybody actually appears who thinks it should be a separate article, we can start a fresh discussion then, and none of us need hold three years of silence against them. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lehigh Division

The Lehigh Division article has ten red links. I don't know how to tag it, so I am mentioning it here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links are not a problem per se, they typically indicate a need for an article, so there is no cleanup template. See WP:REDDEAL. However, it's worth checking if any are spelling errors, or if articles already exist with alternate capitalisations; in such cases you have the choice of either amending the redlink, or creating a redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Garrison train crash AfD

The Garrison train crash article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And the article was saved. ----DanTD (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we have ONE English in International articles?

The High-speed rail article has a huge mix of UK and US English. For example Level crossings are being called both Level Crossings and Grade crossings and Railways are being called both Railroads and Railways. In other articles 'Points' and 'Switches' are being used in the same paragraph! I think it should go by the most common International name, but that's not whats being shown. There needs to be a standardised use of English in all International Railway articles. (When I say International I mean articles which involve more than one country's railway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likelife (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Per MOS:ENGVAR English should be standardised on a per article basis. I think that's the simplest way to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, ENGVAR governs here; the question is which variety to use. The standard practice is to follow the "first major contributor" rule, where we look at the page history and see which one was distinguishably used first.

But... I have some concerns with that. Firstly, that, due to the dramatic differences in UK and US rail terms, we'd have to pit a ton of parentheticals all over the article to ensure comprehensibility for users of the other variety, and that technical and legal definitions written using one set of terms should not be changed to the other set, as that would render them inaccurate. I wonder if using US terms in the US sections and UK terms in the others might be the best solution. It wouldn't be fully ENGVAR compliant, but this might be judicious use of WP:IAR. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be inappropriate to look to the "first contributor" since this is a field that's grown a lot over time and various people will have made big contributions in their own area. Plus, I'm very fond of the idea of wikipedians being faceless toilers who merely describe what's happening in the outside world rather than putting their fingerprint on it . In the case of High-speed rail I think a little push towards standardisation on one language could make a big difference - and if terms are ambiguous, we can put more emphasis on wikilinks & redirects than on lengthy parentheses... bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We're explicitly called not to rely on links in that fashion, on accessibility grounds, and as the reader can be reading from a printed hard copy. It's stated as such in WP:MOSLINK, which I might not agree with completely, at least in terms of WP:OVERLINK, but is on solid grounds here. As such, I don't think that is a good solution to the ENGVAR gap. oknazevad (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand (or sit) corrected. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

We're never going to have a perfect solution here - as has been pointed out, the differences between US and UK/Commonwealth usage are significant - but we could probably improve the present situation in some areas e.g.

Use the terminology used by the country in which the article is e.g. US terms for articles on rail transport in the USA, Canada and other countries that use US terminology. Likewise British language for articles on rail transport in the UK and other countries that use British terminology.

Use EU terminology within Europe (based on UIC terminology I think).

Use UIC terminology in the UIC's member countries.

Some general articles can be split because US and European practice and standards are quite different. Hence there is an article on gondola (rail) which is about US practice and one on goods wagons based on European/UIC practice, with both referring to each other. Not ideal, but gets round the utter confusion caused by different terms!

What we should avoid is creating new Wikipedia terminology ("rail track"?) which is not used by the industry and reliable sources --Bermicourt (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a slightly unusual situation. We are dealing with a worldwide topic where there is a great difference in terminology for the similar things. My solution would be a hatnote at the top of the article stating the the appropriate regional language is used in each section, say, British English in Europe, American English for North and South America, Australian English for Australasia. That just leaves Asia and Africa. I've not looked at the article, but if it is clear that a particular version of English is established there, then that is what should be used. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

High-speed rail is a difficult one. A solution might be to use the international UIC terminology except for country-specific sections. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a problem. I think the English of that nation should be used on aritcles or paragraphs on about that country, is the best way to go, but most of Europe and Asia are part of the UIC including the UK so do we ignore that the UK is part of it and just use the British terminology here? I think Africa, Asia and Australasia mainly uses Commonwealth English, simply because they are directly connected to the European network or are Commonwealth nations, but It makes sense to use UIC for HSR Likelife (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two other factors which make the High-speed rail article more problematic than most:

• The US uses a different definition (110 mph (177 km/h) versus 200 km/h (124 mph) for Europe and some other parts of the world.
• There has been recent talk that the History section is too focused on the United States, although I think that rather depends.

The English speaking countries are all rather late to the game, although both the UK and the US had significant contributions along the way. Tim PF (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Level crossings are sufficiently different between US & UK that the article will need two or more large sections, to give separate coverage per continent. Within each section it would then make sense to use the regional term (i.e. inconsistency across the whole article) for terms like "grade crossing" / "level crossing". However MOS would still apply to color/colour, which shoudl be article-consistent. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we don't get any of our information directly from the rails, but rather from industry sources (such as Railway Gazette) and occasionally from mainstream publications. Off the top of my head, I think RG leans slightly towards British English usage but not entirely so. Should we look at the language that sources are using, and try to base a compromise on that? bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be concerned with that. Sure Railway Gazette may lean toward BrEng, but other sources, such as Trains magazine would use AmEng. Those uses of a set of terms reflects the nationality of the source, not the subject, and are therefore a poor guide. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, RG was just an example :-)

In principle, wikipedia is supposed to reflect what sources say. I still think it would be a good idea to review some of the most commonly cited sources and see what terms they use. It might not give an easy answer on every point but at least it could help clean up confusion over a few terms. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Former railway stations in the United States

Category:Former railway stations in the United States, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sub-project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject High-speed rail. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on what's happening to this now -- could you update here please? Tim PF (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone commented that this should really be a task force under this project. I concur. oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about whether it should be a full project or just a task force should take place on the linked page, not here. The linked page is listed at WP:COUNCIL/P. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Silverliner V

Are there any pictures of the Silverliner V on WP? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Search http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Silverliner+V&l=5 on Flickr. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hot articles subscription request

Hello, just saw your HotArticlesBot subscription request. Unfortunately, we are currently only accepting subscription requests for projects with 2500 or fewer articles during the trial period (due to the expensive database queries involved). Very sorry for this inconvenience. I'll be sure to let you know once we are accepting requests from larger projects. Thanks for your interest though! Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll never get this project below 2500 articles... there must be that number of open railway stations in the UK alone, each with its own article. Then there are the closed stations, stations in other countries, rail lines and companies, locomotives... there are currently 61192 transclusions of Template:WikiProject Trains, and I happen to know that there are a lot of relevant articles which don't have the project banner (quite a few French railway stations), so I suppose we'll need a threshold of 250,000 not 2,500. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hazelhead railway station

I was updating infoboxes on the Woodhead Line and rediscovered what Keith D had commented on three years ago - is it Hazelhead or Hazlehead? Most references I have found call the settlement Hazlehead, but as the station was first opened in 1845 when the settlement may have been one slightly confused dog it is quite possible that it was opened as Hazelhead and renamed later. Would someone with a copy of Butt like to proffer an opinion? Scillystuff (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jowett's gives the name as Hazlehead Bridge! Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Butt (p.116) has the station as opened as Hazlehead 1 May 1846; closed 1 Nov 1847; reopened as Hazlehead Bridge 1 Nov 1850; closed 6 Mar 1950.

• Dow, George (1959). Great Central, Volume One: The Progenitors, 1813-1863. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 1468 X.

states Hazlehead Bridge on p.51 and Hazlehead on pp.56,82,118, whilst on p.127 we find that the reopening was at the beginning of August 1850, with the renaming to Hazlehead Bridge was November 1850; apparently Bradshaw used both forms for some months. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done article amended, reffed and moved. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting help with the Grand Canyon Limited

I've just finished creating a web page about the final Grand Canyon Limited...or, more precisely, its nameless successor (the train lost its name at some point between March and June of 1968). According to the Official Guide of the Railways for April 1971 and according to Keith L. Bryant Jr.'s History of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. it was the final Santa Fe passenger train to operate and in fact as far as published schedule is concerned (I don't have records of actual arrival times) was the last pre-Amtrak passenger train of any original Amtrak member railroad. However, when I checked the Wikipedia entry for the train, I see that it shows the train being discontinued in January 1970.

I feel that my own references are pretty sound, but I do not have any of the references cited in the article to compare reliability of the source material. I could go ahead and change the article myself, of course, and I may just do that if I can't persuade anyone here to help. However, I would prefer to work with another editor, preferably someone with access to some of the reference material that I don't have. I can provide information from a pretty extensive collection of Official Guides of the Railways and a few other books such as Some Classic Trains and More Classic Trains.

Is anyone interested in working with me on this? If so, contact me via my talk page or by email—my email address is readily available on my web site, Streamliner Schedules (I check the email more frequently than the talk page). Thanks In Advance!Ehbowen (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)