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

List of EuroCity services

I've created this article, based on the list that was on the EuroCity pages, to try and make it more informative and current. It's a work in progress, so it's still incomplete and a bit messy - any contributions to completing the page would be welcome. I noticed that a number of people are creating new articles for specific TEE/EC services, so this ties neatly into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 March 2013

Station naming (again)

moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Station naming (again)

Platform layouts on less complex systems

User:Mysteryman557 and others have created some HTML-based platform diagrams, I believe originally for the New York City Subway system. They work very well for stations like Times Square – 42nd Street (New York City Subway), where there is an enormous amount of complexity in even a single station complex. However, he has begun adding them to MBTA subway stations, which are almost entirely two-track stations with one island or two side platforms. (Typical diff). This adds length to the article, but no real useful information, and I feel it's touching on WP:NOTTRAVEL. Additionally, the raw HTML code may not work very well with screen readers, thus hindering access.

My preference for the MBTA system would be to remove the HTML-based diagrams, and replace them with SVG diagrams for the handful of comple stations in the system that can't be adequately be explained by a photograph of the station. I don't work much with the NYC system, but due to the complexity of the stations (often with multiple services that change by day and hour) the diagrams may be worth keeping as-is. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree they're not needed. Good faith addition, but really just takes up space for no real benefit. Doesn't add any new info. oknazevad (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I know I initiated a discussion about platform layouts a few months ago, I think it was at this page. I've got a feeling it fizzled out before coming to any conclusions but it would be worth looking at if anyone can find it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

These HTML-based diagrams are already on hundreds of pages about stations of the Hong Kong MTR, Taipei Metro, Guangzhou Metro, and Shenzhen Metro, just to name a few metros whose station articles all have layouts. That's where I based my layouts from. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 11:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2013#Template:Rail text color, I think. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Some more previous threads: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5#Platform layout (December 2009-August 2010); Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 17#Platform layouts (July-August 2010); Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 21#Station track plans (June 2011).

Beginning yesterday, Epicgenius (talk · contribs) (who until then had made exactly two edits to articles about London Underground stations, so may be unaware of our conventions) has added some rather detailed schematics to tube station articles such as: Gloucester Road; Mansion House; St. James's Park; Sloane Square; South Kensington; Temple; Tower Hill. I think these should be carefully considered. Personally I am not in favour, since if the information is available from TfL's website, our diagrams will either be inaccurate or a copyright violation; but if it isn't available, it's probably WP:OR. Either way, I think that WP:NOTTRAVEL applies here. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I got the platform layouts based on this website. Many London Underground station layouts are irregular, what with the island-side platform combinations. (For example, at Baker Street tube station there are 10 platforms.) They can be better shown with station layouts.
Also, the number of platforms is wrong—e.g. Mansion House tube station has one island platform and one side platform, not three platforms as the article says (but there are three platform numbers, which is correct). The station layouts are there to correct that. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 11:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that trying to depict Baker Street (where the platforms are on three different levels at varying angles to one another) in two dimensions, using the linear layout that HTML imposes, is so difficult that the result will be incomprehensible to anybody who has not already studied the station limit; as such it is a pointless exercise. You give your source as carto.metro.free.fr - the maps shown there have tracks and platforms, but do not show concourses, or much of the other detail that you are putting in these diagrams. Since the website accepts coordinates in a query string, and all of the infoboxes have coordinates already, it would be a far simpler task to amend {{infobox London station}} to include a link to http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?zoom=5&gpslat={{{latitude|}}}&gpslon={{{longitude|}}} like this one for Baker Street.

When we speak of the number of platforms, that's the number of faces against which trains may stop to load passengers, not the number of raised structures. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to depict it in two dimensions—just use three different tables, one for each level, then include a note that the platforms are perpendicular. That's what all the other station layouts in the world do. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that every station has a ticket hall and concourse. If I'm wrong let me know. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your diagrams give the impression that concourses/ticker halls are not at ground level - Gloucester Road and St James's Park for two are at ground level. The diagrams are also unsourced and where the layout is very simple add nothing. NtheP (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

1. If the ticket halls are at ground level, then the articles should say that.
2. See above for source—the track map on carto.metro.free.fr is the source. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't add that St James's Park ticket hall is at ground level as that's OR and neither do I see carto.metro.free.fr giving station layouts, just track diagrams and if it is making the suggestion that the ticket halls are at a level other than what they are then I'd suggest it's not a reliable source. NtheP (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I could just add the platform layouts without the ground and concourse levels then. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You could, but I don't see the benefit that would bring. If we want to show platform layout, and unless the layout is encyclopaedically notable I think WP:NOTGUIDE would encourage us not to, then we should be creating a standardised concise diagram along the lines of the BSicon system rather than the those massive tables with limited accuracy (correct to the nearest 90° only). The amount of space in an article they take up is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. It should also be noted that the platform locations shown at carto.metro are correct only with regards to the position relative to the line it is on, which in turn are relative only to other lines and can be distorted for clarity (e.g. at Earl's Court the Picc is shown south of the District not directly below it). Indeed, is carto.metro even a reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As in the case with platform layouts with perpendicular or intersecting non-parallel platforms, the layouts don't need to be oriented sideways—otherwise, how would you read them?
For explanations for the distortions, read the footnotes about the Picc line platforms that say that the District line platforms are superimposed above them. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 03:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf. These layouts are frequently inaccurate, voluminous, add little or no information, breach policies and rely upon a source which provides us with no assurances of its reliability or its own sources. I am also disturbed that Epicgenius is disregarding WP:BRD and re-instaing hir table after its reversion and while discussion continues. NebY (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Despite this statement, Epicgenius (talk · contribs) continues to add these diagrams to stations with the simplest of layouts - two platforms, one for each direction, shared by all lines serving the station. I think we need a decision sooner rather than later. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's really up to you—but personally I prefer to have the simpler layouts done as well as the more complex layouts, as it standardises the layouts across all tube station articles.
  By the way, I am a guy. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information for stations like Royal Oak or Westbourne Park being on three levels? Don't say carto.metro.free.fr because it shows nothing that isn't either a track, platform or tunnel mouth. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So they're two levels? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The question was, where are you getting your information for stations like Royal Oak or Westbourne Park being on three levels? Whether there are two, three, or indeed one, then if you cannot provide a reliable source for all of the detail (levels, ticket selling facilities, barriers, etc.), I can only conclude that all of your diagrams are mostly guesswork, and as such, have no place in this encyclopedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I can just add the platform layouts without any intermediate levels shown. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And that does nothing to solve the underlying problems that most articles do not need, and should not have, these diagrams. We already have multiple standardized diagrams, which fit in well-made templates, to indicate the services at a station. Unless there is an exceptional level of complexity - that is, multiple services, multiple platforms, or wholly unusual service patterns that are in and of themselves notable and thus citeable - this is Wikipedia and not a travel guide. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: at this point, continuing to add any platform diagrams (regardless of complexity) without consensus here is disruptive and is liable to get you blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, can I add a modified version in the Korail articles, then? It's not nearly as disruptive (fewer bytes), and actually helps the article. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the above. I am simply modifying some MTR layouts to be correct. I can do that, right? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: This type of layout is what I was talking about in the stricken-through paragraph. It will be correct regardless of the number of levels. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just also add for the sake of completeness that per WP:ENGVAR, UK stations don't have "lobbies", "information counters" or "faregates", and when referring to the direction of travel, it is "towards X station" and not "toward". Lamberhurst (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I just copied the layouts off of other metro systems' layouts; they sometimes have "toward" and other times "towards". In America, typically the two are interchanged. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 23:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Which implies further that you are not doing adequate research. Rail transport terminology is probably the area with the most significant divergence between US and British varieties of English so its always best to check first before blindly importing. As for the KORAIL diagram, what exactly is the encyclopaedic information is it adding to an article? Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, if it's useless, why has it been in the article for several years? The Seoul Station layout is useful because there are 15 platforms (UK definition) for Korail alone, and 4 each for AREX and Seoul Metro, as well as being a key transfer point between railway lines. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 23:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If a station is sufficiently complex to justify a platform layout, then it should be as an SVG image, not kilobytes of raw HTML which will fuck up screen readers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The layouts are already on 1000+ pages. Besides, what do you mean by "sufficiently complex"? Do you mean that it has to have more than one platform or something? Blind people can't see images, with or without a screen reader. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sufficiently complex = more than 2 tracks and an island, or two tracks and two sides. The layout and directions for such stations can already be determined by knowing the track count and platform type. Screen readers are going to trip up a lot less on a single embedded image (which is also a hell of a lot more useful, because you can show depth and angles better than the current system) than on 1.2 kB of raw HTML. Your continued insistence at working with these in the MBTA articles indicates that you just aren't getting this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not add a single layout to MBTA articles. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are now templates which generate platform layouts, such as Template:NYCS Platform Layout IRT Pelham Line Bronx Local Stations, and subtemplates. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Mississippi Tennessee Railroad}}

Template:Mississippi Tennessee Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominated because it was unused, this diagram has now been renamed and placed in the article about the renamed railway. As such the nomination should be withdrawn. Britmax (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass production of train-related articles

Could someone please take a look at some of these? I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with them. It's just that when I see mass production, it's often good to check to see that they are started with the right components and conventions in order to save later work. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at some of them. They seem okay to me. They appear to be written in Indian English, which is appropriate for articles about Indian railway infrastructure. I would have used endashes instead of hyphens in the names of the articles about the "sections", but other than that, I can't see any obvious issues with the articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's great to hear. He's not very communicative and has had issues in the past, but seems to be creating product, so I'm pleased to see him continue. Many thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RijnGouweLijn

Could someone take a look at RijnGouweLijn. This was translated from Dutch by a non-native English speaker three years ago, using automatic translation. While appreciating that effort, the article really needs a complete rewrite into natural English by a native speaker, and a considerable amount of duplication needs eliminating. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Planned Article: Queens Super Express Bypass

I'm currently trying to find information on the Queens Super Express Bypass line of the New York Subway proposed in the 1960's, so that I can create an explanatory article. So far all I've managed to turn up are a few forum posts with gives me the following information the single track line was to run between the 21st Street – Queensbridge Station and the Forest Hills – 71st Avenue Station, the line would have been partially in tunnel and partially on the surface with no intermediate stops.

What I am lacking is:

1. Citeable documents, newspaper articles, planning reports, etc
2. A clear understanding of how the line was to be used in the NYC Subway network.

If anyone is willing to join in and help, I would be very happy.Graham1973 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Although many editors follow both, this seems like a better question for the specific New York City public transportation wikiproject.oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a link on my user page to the California Digital Newspaper Collection. Might be worth a try searching there. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that notable and besides, it would be better classified under the article IND Second System, which talks about that. As you can see, the New York subway has a separate page devoted to failed construction.
The Bypass is part of the IND 63rd Street Line—Second Avenue Line project, so consider including a section about the Bypass in the articles. This and this are all I was able to find. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of train and tram tracks

The article Comparison of train and tram tracks is badly in need of a review by a civil engineer or mechanical engineer or both. Peter Horn User talk 16:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also in need of the combination of those four tags into one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, if only all fixes were that easy. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Metro Line

{{Metro Line}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with routemap template for TAZARA?

I just created a Template:TAZARA for the TAZARA Railway. Could someone who understands these things better than I do please look it over and tell me if anything should be changed? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see someone creating content about an African rail topic. I've deleted a superfluous line. My only other comment is that it might be better to turn the whole map upside down, and show it as a Dar-es-Salaam to Kapiri Mposhi map, in keeping with the general convention that maps show north at the top and south at the bottom (and that's also the way the line is described in the TAZARA Railway article). Bahnfrend (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bahnfrend. I think your suggetion to invert it makes sense. I'll do that now. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have information and photos of restored running 12T and under Plymouth Locomotives - But I have no idea how to help

Greetings! New here, clueless. I was on the Plymouth Locomotive Works page, looked under "talk", noticed that photos were needed, information was requested. I have 4 running Plymouth Locomotives, one from 1929-ish (on live rail no less - yah I know - crazy. I want to help, don't know how? Someone point me in a direction? Thanks! ThisIsMary (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mary, and welcome. :) If you own the images and would like to add them, you can upload them here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Then, you can add them to the article. Very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To add them to the article after uploading, see Help:Image tutorial. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Firefly train.jpg

image:Firefly train.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the tag to a {{now commons}}, as the same image is there under the same name, with source infomation. Edgepedia (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Loop"

The usage of The Loop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Chicago Loop -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at Jaipur Duronto Express

Hello everyone. I really need a favour. Two editors at Jaipur Duronto Express disagree on practically everything.

Bugging Wikipedia:Dispute resolution doesn't seem like the best way. There are too many points, the discussion is too long, and they need to know about train articles.

So, I have a creative solution. I need an editor who meets these criteria:

• Uninvolved and has never had any contact with either User talk:Superfast1111 or User talk:Sranjanm2002

• Has five minutes to spare

• Knows train articles

Could you please spend a mere 5 minutes on the article? Remove, add, modify, whatever you see fit.

It just needs a neutral editor to create a stable version. Then, they can work on changes bit by bit using the WP:BRD cycle.

I would be very grateful for any help on this one. Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Loop (train)

The name for the article Loop (train) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Loop (train) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Land speed record for rail vehicles

It will be great if project members can comment on the current proposal here Talk:Land speed record for rail vehicles#A couple of readability problems to restructure that page to bring it up to Wikipedia standard. Your comments are appreciated. Z22 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Seetal railway line

{{Seetal railway line‎}} has been nominated for deletion. Useddenim (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rail start

Template:Rail start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Milwaukee Road Depot (Tacoma, Washington)

The article says the building is 400 square feet. Unless it's only about ten feet deep, it's a lot bigger than that based on the included picture. Could it be 4,000 square feet? 184.34.24.104 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I left out a zero. It's fixed now. Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Start Date and Age Template Problems

In case anyone was not aware, the "Start Date and Age" template has changed its format. Dates must now be typed in this way: {{Start date and age|yyyy|mm|dd}} to display formatted as: March 25, 2010 (2010-03-25) Mysteryman557 (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How is that different? It's been documented like that for years. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For the New York City Subway and some others, we used to write it like "March 25, 1904." Now were are getting error messages. Mysteryman557 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been through every revision of the doc page right back to the original version. It has never suggested that {{start date and age|March 25, 1904}} was a valid form - it has always shown {{start date and age|1904|03|25}} or similar. If putting a full date into a parameter that was intended for a bare year has worked at some point in the past, it seems like you were exploiting a bug or other undocumented feature. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how it was set up, there has been a sudden outbreak of error message on these templates. I've fixed some of them, and it's a task that has proven to be time consuming, but not difficult. Most dates have been arranged in the manner that Mysteryman557 has described, and they've had no problems until the past week. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps it could be mentioned at Template talk:start date and age? I doubt that the people who maintain that template are regular watchers of this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal: dome lounge into dome car

Following its use as a feature in Portal:Trains/Did you know earlier this month, the proposal has been made to merge dome lounge into dome car. Interested editors are asked to please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 15:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hi, there is a problem with VisualEditor and some railway line templates. Perhaps someone more familiar with these templates can help at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Railway templates consuming entire page width. Thank you! --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of RDTs

I am having problems with an editor who feels that RDTs are simply a Navbox or a list of stations, and can replaced with a table and a .png map. Anyone who has an opinion on this should add their comments to Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Purpose and scope. Useddenim (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.48.136 (talk)