User talk:Sturmovik

Welcome

Hello, Sturmovik, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --BOARshevik 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Scandinavian Flick.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scandinavian Flick.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TopGear Cow-on-Roof.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TopGear Cow-on-Roof.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. There may be other Top Gear images uploaded by you that have also been tagged as orphaned. See Talk:List of Top Gear episodes for my rationale for removing the images from the article. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North American railway signaling

You have made several significant edits to the North American railway signaling article in the past few weeks. This includes removing text, changing/restructuring sections and adding/modifying text. Would you please explain why you have made these edits. None of them have verifiable source references, which is required under Wikipedia policy (see WP:REF). Without references, these edits are considered as original research, which is not allowed (see WP:OR). The Wikipedia community trusts that your edits are made in good faith. However, if references are not added to the article to substantiate the changes within 10 days (by September 28, 2007), they will be reverted under WP:OR. Truthanado 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some references. More references are always appreciated. Remember that Wikipedia requires references, even when the text is written by a subject-matter expert. Best of luck in your future edits. Truthanado 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy Crash.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeremy Crash.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bill Buckner" bridge name

Ah HAH! That's much clearer. - Denimadept (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signal box merge

If you have issues with my edits, the proper place to discuss them would be here on Wikipedia and not on some external forum. You are obviously very bitter because I have merged two articles that you think should be kept separate. Please understand that I only merged the articles following a discussion, the result of which was a concensus to merge. You lost the argument. Get over it. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bitter, I am mildly irritated as to the massive UK slant seen on railway related articles and I will speak of this on whatever forum that I see fit. As I said on the other forum I don't have the time to trying to globalize all of the existing articles. I also have the integrity not to ruin them by dropping in external content in a half-assed manner. The only loser here are those that wish to learn about railway operations outside the UK.Sturmovik (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

am not to blame for any UK slant that might exist in articles with worldwide relevance. On the contrary, I have been actively working to keep such articles free of unnecessary country-specific detail and I will continue to do so. If you have evidence of me introducing UK slant into non-UK articles, I'd like to see it. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game is currently up for deletion, along with this and 94 other Price is Right games

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Budd-Pioneer-III-truck.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Budd-Pioneer-III-truck.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the River Line is this image?

I see two sheltered platforms in the background of this File:SJLR Signal-127S.jpg, and I think it'd be good for a station article. The trouble is I've looked up and down the line on Google Maps Street View, and I can't find it for the life of me. Can you tell me where this station is? ----DanTD (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of The Other Guy

Complete the lists of railway substations

Please complete the lists of railway substations used for 25 Hz-traction in USA. Add please also coordinates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.188.164 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips to help you out!

Hi Sturmovik, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Sturmovik/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Sturmovik/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Sturmovik! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBTC edition

Hi! First of all, thanks to your contribution in the CBTC article. I´d like, however, to make you notice that some of the statements are not agreed by the whole community, e.g.:

It is not necessary at all a fallback signalling system to provide high availability. In fact, main suppliers already desing and deploy their systems based on a complete redundant architecture (including the radio system) achieving values of even 99.9% availability with NO need of a fallback system ^[1]. Besides, network security is good enough to avoid any issue.
Supervision system is NOT a single point of failure since local, central and backup systems might be included in the design.
I do not agree with your first comment: apart from the fact that the availability is high, and degraded modes of operations allows the (e.g) failed train to be manually driven without a complete affection of the system as you stated.
Regarding your last comment: it is an "isolated" circumstance, no point in showing. Most of the cases result in the opposite: transport capacity is increased.

Let´s discuss about it. We must be objective and state general and common statements, and we should not use certain specific issues as a common issue for the technology.

I feel it is necessary to make sure that people are informed that CBTC is not some magical panacea that solves all of one's signaling problem without any sort of downside. That's how it is being sold and in every case I have intimate knowledge of, SEPTA Subway-Surface, Metrolink PTC, NYCTA Carnasie Line and Cambrian ERTMS, there have been major delays, cost overuns and degraded service. In may cases people won't go on the record with specific details because it would expose large wastes of taxpayer funds so I presented a list of drawbacks that I should would be non-controversial, but it appears that persons like your self are committed to pushing the CBTC agenda.

First, you DO need a fallback system for high availability because if the CBTC fails your entire line is sunk and you'll need to cancel the service. The NYCTA Carnasie line has suffered CBTC failures several times (the |last was just a week ago) and had to revert to the backup system.

Second CBTC supervision systems do represent a single point of failure because in the traditional signaling arrangement each interlocking or track circuit block boundary is a completely independent unit (or at least in is in North America). Even if there is a complete failure of the command and control network it is possible to assume local control and continue to run trains. However under most CBTC systems I am aware of if the central office becomes unavailable you are SOL. The only one that I know doesn't have that problem is Amtrak's Michigan Line ICTS, but that's just a fixed block PTC overlay.

Regarding degraded modes if a CBTC system loses contact with a train in its territory yes that train is affected, but other trains must also be slowed because the system can no longer determine if the track head is clear. In the SEPTA example if one train failed to register EVERY train in the entire system was immediately brought to a stop. Also, what I said about losing contact with the CTBC system is completely true. Any brief interruption in the communications link will bring the train to a stop. What wireless networks have you ever been on that don't occasionally lose contact?

The SEPTA implementation aside, I have been told by an insider at the NYCTA that capacity on the L was increased from 22tph under the old system to 24tph under the new (although some sources say 26tph now). Yes that's an increase, but installing the system took a decade and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Modifying the original fixed block system to use shorter blocks could have yielded the same increase at much less cost. While the SEPTA system was free it also took nearly a decade to implement and while Cembrain ETRMS wasn't about a capacity increase it too is over schedule and is projected to cost over 400 million pounds.

Finally re security, that is actually my profession and I am currently working on secure wireless systems and I know that ant CBTC system would be secure because secure wireless simply doesn't exist yet. At best they would require a skilled adversary, at worst they are one unpatched vulnerability from being owned by some kid with a laptop.

Anyway my additions to the article are not only backed up by real world examples, but rely on issues present in wireless communications networks and differences between the architectures of traditional signaling systems and CTBC systems. Wireless networks are less reliable than wired networks and have issues with signal strength, interference and frequency allocation. They present a larger attack surface than wired networks. CBTC is more centralized than traditional systems and thus more susceptible to complete system failures. CTBC systems with more safety supervision do reduce capacity compared to systems with less safety supervision. If you don't want complete loss of train detection if the CBTC goes down you will need a backup track circuit (or axle counting) system. All of this is demonstrably true and it needs to be part of the CBTC conversation. Any article that fails to address these issues is showing bias for a signaling method that has bitten many transit agencies with higher than intended costs. Sturmovik (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I insist we really appreciate your comments. However, we are talking about a proven technology, not about specific projects. We should not show a problem in a certain project as a drawback of the technology itself. (i.e. If my car and your car are having a problem, we cannot say that all the cars around the world have that problem.) Of course your comments are not controversial, but they show certain problems that are not general for all the systems, let me say. As for your comments:

Sorry, but in my opinion, you might want a fallback system, but you do not need it if your CBTC system is already designed itself based on redundant high-available architecture. This was part of an interesting discussion in the last CBTC Congress in November in Stckholm.

Local control is also possible in a CBTC system (divided in regions). Besides, many operators request a backup control centre as well.

Many projects had and are having problems, yes. But not only CBTC projects, but any kind of project. You claim that NY is an example of minor benefit... but you can also claim other projects with huge benefits in terms of transport capacity (for instance +25% in Line 1 and around 40% in Line 6, both in Metro de Madrid ). That´s what we said: sometimes problems are not related to the technology being used!)

Regarding "If you don't want complete loss of train detection if the CBTC goes down you will need a backup track circuit (or axle counting) system". Exactly, same as above... The thing is how available is your CBTC system, so that there would not be need of TC/AxC fallback. If your system is redundant architecture providing high availability by itself... whay should you need another falback? "All of this is demonstrably true and it needs to be part of the CBTC conversation" All of this is a continuous part of the CBTC conversation (pls visit the link I gave you), and we really appreciate your contribution!!! Just saying that some issues in your list are not to be considered as 100% related to the technology (but maybe to the suppliers). "Any article that fails to address these issues is showing bias for a signaling method that has bitten many transit agencies with higher than intended costs.". We encourage an objective point of view, ALWAYS. And we appreciate your list (we even agree on some points), thanks a lot. But pls check you are not being subjective in turn at some points! THANKS a LOT.

Pls, let´s go on with the discussion. 17:30, 12 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israel.abad (talk • contribs)

First I do not agree with CTBC being a proven technology, especially in the case of being retrofitted to systems that were not designed with CTBC in mind. Second, CBTC is being presented as a cheaper and more reliable alternative to traditional forms of signaling. Unfortunately the reality is that CBTC ends up costing just as much as older forms of signaling because you have to deal with all of the disadvantages I mentioned. CBTC is not appropriate for many signaling circumstances, especially where the very high traffic densities that CBTC does make possible are not required. It is just like automatic train operation or platform screen doors, there are pros and cons and the article needs to address both of them. Furthermore, I made sure to target many of the disadvantages to specific implementation details like wireless or used of centralized signaling computers. While they do not apply to CTBC in general, the vast majority of systems are using those approaches. Just because not all cars go fast or carry flammable fuel doesn't mean cars cannot be criticized for those safety drawbacks because the most common use case involve those two factors.

The article needs to address all the ways that CBTC can go wrong. When a reporter (or public official) goes to Wikipedia to see what their transport agency is talking about when it mentions CBTC they should read that there are all sorts of things that need to be done to get such a system to work properly. Like I said on every major implementation in the United States the signal vendor has promised all sorts of cost savings and simplicity, then the system doesn't work well and they have to keep adding equipment until it does. The issue isn't that CBTC doesn't work, its that CBTC always works out of the box and costs less than traditional systems. This is why there should be a disadvantages section. Just like automobiles have problem with needing fuel supplies, roads and parking, bad CBTC implementations occur when a signal supplier feels that they can get away with neglecting one of those side pieces in their initial pitching of the project. Everything I mentioned are issues that disproportionately affect CBTC compared with traditional systems and can drive up the cost.

Regarding capacity issues CBTC does have an upper bound for headways due to the locational uncertainty. For most applications this is better than the older fixed block system. However on systems where operators run trains on sight with little additional safety supervision then CBTC will decrease capacity. This often only applies to tram type systems where on-sight running is possible. This would be true of ANY safety system, but again, CBTC is sold as being able to support these short frequencies when it cannot.Sturmovik (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I must disagree. You said "CBTC is being presented as a cheaper and more reliable alternative to traditional...". This is not the way it is presented in the article. Long-term cost due to easier maintenance is a real fact. That does not mean that the design and deployment is also cheaper (and that is not mentioned in the article). Reliability figures for MOST of the projects show better values, so that is what have been said. You also said "the vast majority of systems are using those approaches", and I must disagree again: that´s not the normal practice for the technology around the world, I insist.

Also "The article needs to address all the ways that CBTC can go wrong". And we fully agree, always. We are just saying that the way you are listing these issues is not generic for every system, and we cannot consider it objective. "Everything I mentioned are issues that disproportionately affect...". Yes, but they are specific to some projects, not to the majority. Besides, the projects you mentioned are two of the first implmentations, and (as for any other technology) are more prone to failures than evolved ones.

"...most applications this is better than the older fixed block system...". Well, you agree that CBTC performs better than traditional in that sense. The rest of the paragraph... I do not agree again. The article is talking about increasing performance, but not saying that ANY system will be improved in those terms!

We do not suggest you remove because you are right this must be addressed. The problem we have is the way you are addressing it! Please, we suggest you re-word your statements to avoid subjectivity, e.g.:

Saying that new CBTC systems are using radio comms and that is why they are subject to suffer from the typical security problems of any radio network.... We must agree! But also state that the systems apply all the available defences to avoid it.
Highlighting that some of the first projects suffered from the issues you mention, yes, no problem. But do not write it as if it were for all of them, which is not true! (And please adding the citations to prove)
CBTC systems are not a suitable solution for not high density lines, etc... We agree! Why should I need a 4WD car if I´m living in a city and I do not go out to wilderness? But not saying that CBTC in general cannot support those frequencies at all, etc...

You could also re-word the title: Issues arisen in specific projects or something similar, rather than Disadvantages.

Thank you very much for your comments again :-) --israel.abad (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) —[reply]

Hi again. Sorry but at this point we must state the same as Truthananado state in 2007 (see above): "None of your editions have verifiable source references, which is required under Wikipedia policy (see WP:REF). Without references, these edits are considered as original research, which is not allowed (see WP:OR). The Wikipedia community trusts that your edits are made in good faith. However, if references are not added to the article to substantiate the changes within 7 days (by December 21, 2011), they have to be reverted under WP:OR." Thanks for your editions. --israel.abad (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the old "original research" complaint. Refuge of those who are desperate to promote their agenda. Fine, you want to play that game?? Everything I discussed can be found mentioned in this paper [1] and one additional one on security. It's all referenced up so now do me a favor buzz off and take your completely insincere "Thanks for your editions" Wikinazi bullshit with you. If you actually cared about a neutral point of view you would have gone out of your way to more fully document the risks inherent with CTBC when I raised the issue, referenced or not.Sturmovik (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. We felt free to even add more statements based on your own references, thanks for that, pretty useful. BTW, as you say "...to more fully document the risks inherent with CTBC...", we fully agree and will title the section as Risks, which we think is more accuarte word. --israel.abad (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Silverliner. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The template {{rs}} has been used to tag unreliable sources. Do not remove these tags unless you are replacing the citation. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me like I'm some sort of n00b, all of my sources are reliable and if you had bothered to read them they themselves are sourced, but I don't have access to those sources to get the full details. Whatever, I don't care about your Wikinazi BS. It's crap like this that keeps people from contributing. How about you stick to your U2 pages and I'll stick to what I know. Don't get all up in my face because I bothered to actually get off my duff and contribute something.Sturmovik (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truck or bogie centers

Please see Template talk:Infobox train#Truck or bogie centers and Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Truck or bogie centers. Peter Horn User talk 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox locomotive already has the parameter wheelbase (see Iore). Peter Horn User talk 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar electric motor

Do you have any supporting evidence for the bipolar motors of locomotives before the EP-2 (i.e. the S) having the same design of bipolar motor, where the motor armature could move vertically, relative to the field coils? This was a distinctive feature of the EP-2 and although the S had bipolar motors too, I don't know if they did this too, or if they merely carried the whole motor frame on the axleboxes, so the armature and field didn't move relative to each other. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact design of the S and T motor motors except for the fact that they were "bi-polar". When I was out visiting the S and T near Albany the axles themselves appeared to be sprung to some degree indicating they could move independently. Also if the whole motor was going to be axle mounted thy would they need to be bi-polar. You can change it as you see fit, but vertical motion appears to be the point of the bi-polar design. I'll have photos up by the end of the day and you can inspect them yourself. Sturmovik (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, photos would be good. I don't know much about the S, but I do know that the EP-2 had this independent movement within the motor. Yet the bipolar design was simply how electric motors were built anyway around 1900, especially if there was limited "headroom" above and below the axle, compared to the space ahead and behind it. Some early traction motors (early London Underground, amongst others) were simply bipolar motors mounted rigidly to the axles, with the entire motor carried by the suspension. I don't know which the S used. In the context of the article, the suspension advantage of the bipolar on the EP-2 is notable, the use of bipolar motors otherwise much less so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“RFK Bridge” renaming discussion

Efb91 (talk · contribs) is requesting that “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Triborough Bridge”. Since you voiced an opinion during the last move discussion, I figured I’d bring it to your attention. This new discussion is at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Bridge#Proposal To Change Improper Article Title; Triborough Bridge Is Common-Use Name According to Wall Street Journal.. Larry V (talk | email) 00:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of Triborough Bridge (Again. No Joke.)

The_Interloafer (talk · contribs) is requesting that “Triborough Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge”. (Again.) You voiced an opinion during the last move discussion (a few weeks ago, I know), so I wanted to bring it to your attention. This new discussion is at Talk:Triborough Bridge#This article needs to be renamed. 142.255.89.109 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Park edit

Greetings. Please restore the sections you removed from the Brighton Park article, that functionality is part of the Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocking and locomotive throughway. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PTC has nothing to with the crossing. It's like having a section talking about tires in every article about a specific car. The section basically said that PTC was required and that the interlocking supported PTC. ALL interlockings support PTC because PTC is an overlay technology. Amtrak is installing PTC support on signaling that dates from the 1920's and still uses electro-mechanical interlocking machines. The section that I assume you added on the modernization effort probably violates all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines on overuse of detail, but I don't care as I'm a signaling guy, however the PTC section was just not relevant to Brighton Park in its function as a major crossing at grade. I can find somewhere to mention that the interlocking can more easily support PTC, but that's really all that is warranted. If you want to discuss PTC look into the Lincoln Service article. Sturmovik (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wp:3o

^ http://www.cbtcworldcongress.com/presentations

[1] ttp://www.cbtcworldcongress.com/presentations

[1]