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

River Line station articles

the following articles are appearing in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls

1. Roebling (River Line station)
2. Riverton (River Line station)
3. Riverside (River Line station)
4. Palmyra (River Line station)
5. Hamilton Avenue (River Line station)
6. Florence (River Line station)
7. Entertainment Center (River Line station)
8. Delanco (River Line station)
9. Cooper Street – Rutgers University (River Line station)
10. Cinnaminson (River Line station)
11. Cass Street (River Line station)
12. Burlington Towne Centre (River Line station)
13. Burlington South (River Line station)
14. Bordentown (River Line station)
15. Beverly / Edgewater Park (River Line station)
16. Aquarium (River Line station)
17. 36th Street (River Line station)

the issue is the duplicate use of |title= in the {{s-rail}} in the infobox. could just remove all but the last one, but I wasn't sure if this was correct. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the correct one to leave.

The above shows what each possibility can show. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

in that case, I will let someone else to fix them. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • Changed them all to "New Jersey Transit". See below. oknazevad (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability of railroad stations

• Had a look at a couple of these these articles and a serious issue is that these train stations appear to have notability as per the WP:GNG that cannot be verified WP:V. AadaamS (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you think, @Bobrayner:? AadaamS (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If a station cannot meet WP:V, then WP:GNG is failed, per N = V x RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • AadaamS, can you specify which of the articles currently fail WP:V? I'm pretty good at digging up sources for transit articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, also: The s-rail templates should list NJ Transit and not SNJRG; it is part of the NJT system, with SNJRG merely a hired operator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
          • This is the most important take away from this. In no way should a contract operator be listed instead of the actual owning agency, for the IS at least. For Britain and other countries that have more or less privatized their nationally owned networks, operator may be more relevant, but that's not the case in the US, where there's no centralized ownership. (Notability concerns notwithstanding; I'll just point out that there's been an incredibly consistent presumption of notability of all train stations at WP:AFD and that they are very, very rarely deleted. I seriously doubt it'd be worth the effort of nominating any of them for deletion.) oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
            • No article that I looked at (6-7 of them) had any third-party WP:RS source which verified their notability. It is necessary to add them if the stations are to keep their standalone articles. I checked Palmyra, Cinnaminson and Burlington South stations against Google Newspapers/Archives and nothing turned up. AadaamS (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I've always had the impression that the Southern New Jersey Rail Group was some kind of splinter-agency that was eventually going to take over the River Line from New Jersey Transit. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
              • No, it's just the name for the consortium (though I actually think it's just Bombardier now, the other members having sold out their shares) that operates the line under contract, just as a similar consortium called "21st Century Rail" operates the HBLR under contract. It's a private company, not a government agency. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oknazevad is 100% correct. AadaamS: I found this article which is probably worth noting for Cinnaminson. Opening dates are usually very easy to establish with citations as well. It's also worth noting that many of these stations had previous passenger service before 1963, which can be found and cited as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Pi.1415926535, the source you found seems to be written by University experts, that would make it reliable. That is enough to establish that the station exists, but not enough to verify its notability because it doesn't add up significant coverage as per the WP:GNG. @Oknazevad: nevertheless, each and every standalone article must fulfill the WP:GNG to remain a standalone, the GNG is clear on this. AadaamS (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Im not arguing one way or the other on this. I'm just letting you know what precedents have been set by consensus. The GNG, like all guidelines, is still very much subject to consensus over its application, and exceptions can be made. Guidelines are advice on best practice, not hard and fast rules that must be followed at all times (those are policies) and no guideline inherently trumps consensus discussion. So whether or not the GNG "is clear on this", as you phrase it, it is very much still possible, even probable, that an AFD would be a waste of time, based on the past practice. (I'd argue that the GNG, like many guidelines on Wikipedia, is flawed in that its development doesn't always account for these sorts of practical consensuses found in dozens of discussions and articles throughout the encyclopedia. The tendency of some to treat them as rules, not advice, only exacerbates that, as they tend to forget that not all consensuses are centrally discussed, even if they are widely applied.) oknazevad (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I always try to make any station article I write worthwhile. If there's a distinct history or feature to the station or surroundings, I'll add it to them. I just added a nearby site at Roebling (River Line station), and added a geographic distinction to Cass Street (River Line station). If these additions improve their chances with the GNG, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If not, then at least it makes them a little more unique. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I think we've got past the Bad Old Days when some thought railway stations were exempt from the GNG, allowing editors to create hundreds of station articles by rote which had standardised templates and categories and layouts but very little that would actually benefit readers. Articles like that tend to be a deadweight; they copy simple route or schedule information from a primary source, it's much easier for errors or vandalism to slip through, and updating them is a burden that few want to shoulder - readers would be better served by going directly to the transit operator's website. If a topic passes the GNG that means we've got a solid foundation for writing a real encyclopædia article, with interesting prose for readers. Some of the stations above do not pass the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, there are certainly a lot of station article's I've been hesitant to create, and others I flat-out won't even bother with. A few years ago, some user went on a spree of creating articles for various former El stations in New York City, which were later tagged for mass deletion. I voted to merge them into either related lines or related stations, but the consensus was to keep them all. After that I created a few of my own, and I'm working on another, and even have a few others planned. I've also improved the existing articles as much as I possibly can. On the other hand, there were some former Long Island Rail Road stations I won't even waste my time making, like Napeague Beach (LIRR station), or Nichols Road (LIRR station), or many of the stations along the Atlantic Branch that were only "Atlantic Avenue Rapid Transit" stops. I have considered East Quogue (LIRR station), Laurel (LIRR station), Jamesport (LIRR station), and many of the stations along the Atlantic Branch that were closed during the 1939 reconstruction of the Atlantic Branch, though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I think minor railroad station articles better belong on Wikia, there are no hindrances like notability guidelines or WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE on Wikia. I am surprised that the consensus was to keep the articles, I've been in involved in a few AfD discussions for other subjects and none that have failed to demonstrate WP:GNG has survived as far as I have seen. AadaamS (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I think these minor stations are inherently notable. However, if not, the stubs can probably somehow be merged into the main article River Line (New Jersey Transit) rather than outright deleted. It may or may not pass WP:GNG (which, by the way, it's a policy), but as said above, exceptions can be made in some cases. Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Even if they were inherently notable - a point which seems quite unsupported - it seems odd that anyone would argue an inherently notable topic needs an exception from the GNG. If it's inherently notable, why doesn't it already pass the GNG? That's just silly. We can cut through this contradictory mess quite simply - measure up any disputed article against our existing notability guideline; either it passes or it doesn't. bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
                • @Epicgenius: it doesn't work that way, it doesn't help that you think the stations are notable if you aren't an established expert in the field of transportation published in media of large circulation. If you aren't, then an assertion of notability must be followed by evidence of its notability, which is basically works published about said stations by an expert. Nor does it make any difference if I think they are notable. Notability is possible to prove and sources are the way to do it. @Bobrayner:, are you suggesting that we have a discussion here in the WP Trains Talk, or that we nominate the articles for deletion through the AfD process? AadaamS (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • But as others have said before, there are reliable sources to back up these articles, so it does pass GNG. Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
                    • The GNG requires that the sources are independent and have in-depth coverage. (And rightly so; that allows us to write decent content). Neither of those criteria are met when - for example - an article about a station cites the rail operator's timetable. bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
                      • @Epicgenius: so far I have seen one source added to the Roebling statin which merely state where the station is. That's not good enough for WP:GNG notability of the former steel mill doesn't is not inherited by the nearby train station. A WP:RS to make a subjet pass the WP:GNG must explain why the subject is important, like historical significance, impact on economy, demographics or travel patterns. A WP:TRIVIALMENTION is not enough. AadaamS (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                        • You do realize that this former steel mill has an abandoned railroad spur that connected to the line in the vicinity of the station back in the day when the River Line was an old Pennsylvania Railroad line, don't you? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
                          • Specifically, I don't want to realise anything about abandoned side spurs to former steel mills. I would preferably read about it in the article, supported by citations from WP:RS, as do other readers and editors of our encyclopedia. AadaamS (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
                            • Okay, I get that. And I tried to use Historic Aerials Online to capture a topographic map indicating this, but I couldn't get an exact link to any of those maps. They had a recent upgrade, and getting things like this is more difficult. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To other editors, DanTD is talking about this article. I think further discussions about the side spur should be held in the Talk page of that article. This is the discussion for the notability of that station and others above which lack the sources to WP:V verify their respective notability. AadaamS (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• While we're at it, let's do the same with the other stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have nominated Roebling station article for deletion, please take part in the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roebling (River Line station). AadaamS (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Before I got a chance to comment, the AfD was closed as snow-keep by a brand new account called "antigng", even though the notion of inherent notability is flawed, and there's no evidence that the article passes the GNG. Now we have another "keep" closure which we can use as evidence of inherent notability the next time somebody wants to delete a different article; good to see that our tradition of unthinking circular reasoning is being maintained. I'm sure this wikiproject can be proud of itself. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi @Bobrayner:. Well done researching the Antigng account. Of course you are right, that train stop doesn't one iota of evidence to prove its notability. It flies in the face of verifiability and non-inheritability of notability. In other situations like this one I've seen an admin go against the "majority vote" of the interested parties trying to zerg the discussion to instead look through the sources and their quality and take a decision in line with GNG guideline. It's of course also the case that if Wikiproject Trains members can't see that they're bullying through unworthy articles then of course I want nothing further to do with this project. Bye bob and I hope we meet again on more fertile ground, I'm taking a break from WP Trains now. AadaamS (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The account may be suspicious, but the close is a valid WP:SNOW conclusion. This is an argument that's been had time and time again, and it always ends with the same result: any train station that exists (i.e, is more than a sign tacked to a telephone pole) inevitably has enough documentation available to meet notability. In ten minutes of searching I've found a TOD report with substantial information about the station, established an opening date for the PRR station formerly located on the site, a probable closure date, and a destruction date. That's for a station and a line that I knew nothing about previously. Not to mention there were obviously scoping studies and plans for the station during construction; those would be available by contacting NJT or filing a FOIA request. If gathering those additional sources would satisfy you that notability is met for this article and make you more willing to contribute to the project and work with WP Trains, I will happily assist in compiling the FOIA request.

You can find that level of information or better for any given station, given a willingness to engage in a little work. There is a well-regarded site, Tyler City Station, that has compiled nearly-Wikipedia-ready (they just need original prose) histories of every single railroad station that has ever existed in Connecticut, with quality sources for every single one. Out of that sample of hundreds of stations, almost every single one (minus a few flag stops that lasted less than two decades) would meet the GNG with zero dispute. It is because of demonstrations like that that WP TRains has emerged with the consensus that every railroad station is automatically notable; it is worth for more for us to spend time working on articles than having to prove something to someone who ignores that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Pi, AadaamS, the account may be suspicious, but the close is a valid WP:SNOW conclusion. I concur with the rest of Pi's explanation. I'm sorry that you, AadaamS, are now issuing ad hominem attacks on the project. That's not helpful. I trust your break will do you some good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagishsimon it is too bad that you are sorry but I trust that you will get over it soon. Now that we are discussing helpfulness, Wikiproject Trains insists on having standalone articles for any train stop on Earth when clearly summing them up as sections/paragraphs in the railway line article would make the whole affair much easier to maintain for minor stops, that's why I'm leaving this project. It's not a break as you intepreted it. I might edit rail articles in the future, but no more I'm a member of this project. I can only wish you all good luck. Pi: a FOIA requests aren't going to help when articles for every train stop in Russia, China, India or Africa are created. AadaamS (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure reversed

I have undone the close of the AFD mentioned above as it is obviously questionable. It would be improper for me to put my oar in there but the history of discussion over the years shows that notability of stations is not WP:SNOW anything. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it does not hurt to leave it open for a while so that more editors would have time to add comments especially with editors who have the opposite view like @Bobrayner:. Why are we in such hurry to close it so quickly? In any case, the examples that Pi talks about examples in Connecticut is also an interesting point that might be good to include in that discussion too. Z22 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Prose editing for some articles

I was just reading the NYC Hudson article, and I noticed some issues in the prose which can basically be summed up as a bit of opinion in the article. I went to see who wrote it, and might have been responsible for the text, and I discovered that Morven wrote it in 2004 from an Everything2 article he had written. I also discovered the same issue on the NYC Mohawk article. It's not a huge issue in terms of causing misdirection to the reader or anything, but I was wondering what people thought of maybe having a cleanup drive or something of these articles, because there are uncited opinions in there, and it would be good to have the articles reading the same way, or at least similar to other locomotive articles on the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kevin Rutherford, I agree that the prose could be a lot more encyclopedic, it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia. AadaamS (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Those were written before many of the project's standards had solidified, and should be updated to current standards. However, an attempt should be made to source factual information and to attribute opinion (since it is quite fine to quote or summarize the opinions of e.g. respected historians) rather than simply removing anything that no longer reads as Wikipedia style. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass renaming of German and Austrian stations in the text of articles

A while back it was decided that articles on Germany's and Austria's central or main stations would be titled Foo Hauptbahnhof and I am not challenging that here. However, the fact remains that the most common English translation in many cases is "Foo Central Station" with "Foo Main Station" often way behind. As an example, "Berlin Central Station" gets 3,270 and 314,000 hits on google books and google respectively whilst "Berlin Main Station" gets 135 and 22,300 hits. (Interestingly the article name "Berlin Hauptbahnhof" only gets 3,090 and 539,000 hits even though those include all German articles!)

However User:Wheeltapper continues to mass delete "Foo Central Station" in the text of articles, usually leaving Hauptbahnhof with no translation/explanation, but also often replacing it with "Foo Main Station". This is clearly wrong - there is no consensus to prefer the one over the other - and it does not reflect reality. It is simply a WP:POV. Where Hauptbahnhof is used, we should, where appropriate, give the most common English translation(s).

May I propose the following guideline: (a) that both translations are acceptable; (b) that if one is at least twice as common than the other, then it may be preferred, otherwise both should be given; (c) that the station articles include the English name(s) in the lede and infobox without needing multiple references; (d) that links may use either the German article name or the English redirect as appropriate. If no consensus can be reached, then we allow both in equal measure. Bermicourt (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this coming up yet again? Wasn't it done to death at Talk:Central station, Talk:Koblenz Hauptbahnhof, Talk:Kaiserslautern Hauptbahnhof and Talk:Berlin Hauptbahnhof? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose - those discussions were about article titles. It is normal Wiki practice, however, to put the most common alternative names in the lede and to allow the use of alternative names as links. Google books gives a good indication of what is most common. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with (a) and (c). Articles I read in railfan literature about Berlin Hauptbahnhof and Wien Hauptbahnhof invariably leave those expressions untranslated. On the issue of the preferred translation, see this picture, which I took in Germany last year, after participating in previous discussions about this topic. As far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, my preference would be to put both translations in the lede; Foo Hauptbahnhof and Foo Main Station at the top of the infobox; and then use either Foo Hauptbahnhof or Hauptbahnhof elsewhere in the article. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should be Foo Hauptbahnhof and Foo Main Station should be the name of a redirect to Foo Hauptbahnhof. I also think that main station should be the translation of Hauptbahnhof as being the best word-for-word translation. AadaamS (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but regardless of which way round is best, making mass changes to many different articles is probably not a good idea right now. bobrayner (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@BobRayner. Regrettably these reversions have been going on relentlessly for 2½ years with the apparent aim of removing all references to "Foo Central Station" from Wikipedia - just check out Wheeltapper's contributions - the vast majority of edits to station articles involve deleting "Central Station", even where it is just an explanation of Hbf - this goes far beyong the consensus on article titles. That would be fine if the sources hardly used the term, but research shows that the use of "Foo Central Station" for Hauptbahnhof is widespread. As I understand Wiki guidance, whether we don't like "central station" or think "main station" is a better translation is not key; what matters are the sources and they are using both. All I am seeking is that this is reflected fairly in the text of articles (I am NOT asking for article renaming here). I am willing to be corrected but I believe this is entirely in line with Wikipedia practice. Bermicourt (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As was shown when this was, as Redrose64 says, "done to death", many of the references to Foo Central station thrown up by Google searches rather than looking at reliable sources are nothing to do with the Hauptbahnhofs in question; they are about things like power stations, or are descriptions ("Foo Hauptbahnhof is the central station in Foo"), or are about completely different stations (eg Hamburg Dammtor), or are archaic (ranging from pre-WW1 to pre-final-decision-on-the-current-name-of-Berlin Hbf) or they are just copies of misleadingly-named Wikipedia articles creating citogenesis. Filtering Google results to identify an "English" name would require a huge amount of research to eliminate these (some previous changes appeared to have been made on the basis of simple Google hit counts without analysis of what was appearing). Do we even need confusing (mis-)translations for things where the common usage in English reliable sources is to use the local names (Berlin City Line, Imperial Parliament, Templars' Court [Central?] Aerodrome, September Festival)? After all, this is the English Wikipedia, not "Germans getting the actual English confused Wikipedia". The normal name can be trivially verified from things like signs and journey planners (available in a whole load of languages). Trawling the web until a preferred alternative comes up seems a little unhelpful.

The claim that "Main station" is "clearly wrong" is, well, clearly wrong! (there are Hbfs which are pretty clearly not central stations - are there any which are not the main station?) Wheeltapper (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are still confused about the difference between a proper name and a generic description. The fact that a station is called "Foo Central" does not necessarily mean it is geographically central to the city. The term "Central" may well refer to it being "central" to the railway network, in the sense of a hub. Either way it is a naming pattern that has emerged as a common proper name for a major station in a city, often, but not always, the principal station. It may even be referred to as the "main station" of a city in the sense of "principal station", but "Foo Main" as a proper name is virtually unheard of. Leaving aside your inevitably biased assessment of the sources, I am simply asking you, per bobrayner, to stop mass deleting a perfectly valid and common English translation in the article text whilst pushing your preference for another one. Both are valid, both are widespread and both should be mentioned. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am perfect clear about the different between a proper name and generic name - and that is why I am not keen on inserting spurious and misleading "generic" names instead of common names in Wikipedia (especially if they are then used for circular arguments for using misleading names in other articles). The fact a station is called Foo Central means nothing more or less than that it is named Foo Central, rather than Foo Lime Street, Foo Hauptbahnhof, Foo Austerlitz or Foo anything else. But a central station is usually central.

We cannot leave aside assessment of sources, or else we get situations like the C19th power station found via Google Books being confused with a C21st railway station. My understanding of Wikipedia is that we can adopt your theory about Central meaning '"central" to the railway network' if you can get it published in a reliable source; perhaps you could try The Railway Magazine... although they call a Hauptbahnhof a Hauptbahnhof. (But how would one even define central to the network? Would we need to call New Street "Birmingham Central"?) I'm still not sure why anyone expects German stations to be named in a similar manner to stations in some unspecified anglophone location, or needs a Fritz-free name to use when referring to a bahnhof sausage-side.19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There were a few railway stations in the UK with "Main" in their names. I don't know of any that used the word "main" to indicate a major or principal station. Acton Main Line is in Acton, and it is on the main line out of Paddington, but is a very minor station. Percy Main Metro station serves the former mining village of Percy Main: there are a lot of villages in Yorkshire and the North East which were named after the colliery that they grew up around (e.g. Denaby Main), and "Main" was a common suffix for the principal shaft of a mine. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Farnborough Main railway station. Do I win a prize? – iridescent 16:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dorking sometimes appears as "Dorking (Main)". Perhaps we could refer to Hauptbahnhofs in southwestern Germany as "General" stations, Gotteswunderbarbahn style?Wheeltapper (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Collision at Rafz

Two passenger trains collided at Rafz, Switzerland today. Latest reports are 50 injured, so probably worthy of an article. I'm going to be AFK for a while, so would someone like to start the Rafz train crash article? Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It may not be notable after all; happily, the injury numbers have been revised down considerably. But I've started a stub. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What class locomotive is this? Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I've cracked it, Class Re 460, No, 460 087-0 (pictured). Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

CfD

The Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States has been proposed to be renamed. Please make your views known at the CfD discussion page. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Former services in infobox

Hi all, I've asked a question about the appropriateness of including former rail services in railway station infoboxes at Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles)#Former services in infobox (well more specifically just the Union station article). Input on the matter from more experienced editors would be appreciated. ColonialGrid (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cents per mile

I asked the fine folks at {{Convert}} to add the ability to convert cents per mile to cents per kilometer, which was added today. Previously, we were only able to convert dollars per mile to dollars per km. I did a search for "cents per mile" and I found a bunch of fare sections of railroad articles. I will leave the decision to convert or not to convert cents per mile to this project, but I thought I'd let you know you could if you wanted. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{convert|10|cent/mi|cent/km}} → 10 cents per mile (6.2 ¢/km)
• {{convert|10|cent/mi|abbr=on}} → 10 ¢/mi (6.2 ¢/km)
• {{convert|10|¢/mi|¢/km}} → 10 cents per mile (6.2 ¢/km)
• {{convert|10|¢/mi|abbr=on}} → 10 ¢/mi (6.2 ¢/km)

A missing accident in 2012?

Hi - looking through the list of train accidents I am specifically looking for freight train accidents in the "developed" world. I decided to use OECD as a guideline for selecting countries to include. Since not all of your listings include the word passenger and/or freight, I need to check some of the references to see if it is one or the other. (I'm not familiar with all the rail companies and their services around the world). Doing this I found that the link for note #110 was "dead", so I googled the accident. I found it to be featured here:

According to the article in Huffington Post, there was a third accident prior to those on th 20th and 21st of January 2012. The third one is not included in your lists.

195.159.126.129 (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Which article are you talking about? The accident sounds fairly minor. Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• • @Mackensen: List of rail accidents (2010–present). Mjroots (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • Got it, thanks. Added it to the list. Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Pennsylvania Railroad Chronology

I feel obligated to inform the members of this WikiProject that the PRR Chronology reference links are almost all dead links. I just restored two of them on Internet Archives for the New Canaan Branch, but if anybody runs into any others, they should do the same thing. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• We should deprecate its use as a source regardless. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why? They have actual maps of stations that serve as evidence of how stations are arranged. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The PRR Chronology is an incredible source, and assembled directly from the original PRR documents. Whether it is only available via archive.org (and I believe that's because they're having issues rearranging their site, not that it's being intentionally removed from the web) or not, it is an unbeatable source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unbeatable, but not necessarily reliable. It's unpublished, for a start. That being said, it's received favorable notice in at least one academic work. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with succession templates?

Hi all, I moved Huguenot railway station to Huguenot railway station (South Africa) since further disambiguation against Huguenot (Staten Island Railway station) was needed. I've fixed incoming links except for those in the succession templates at Wellington railway station (South Africa) and Bellville railway station. I found the documentation for these templates oblique, and couldn't understand how the disambiguator for Wellington is hard-coded so I could do something similar for this one. Could someone help me out with this? Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Here is the change I made to the template. What I did was add Huguenot to the list of stations (including Wellington) that link as XYZ railway station (South Africa) rather than XYZ railway station when used in the s-rail templates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I still barely understand, but thanks! --BDD (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rail grinding

I've just started a discussion about the rail grinding redirect (which currently points to High Speed Grinding) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 13#Rail grinding. Your comments there would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Railway line naming convention

Looking at some of the lines that have been partially closed in Victoria (Australia), there is some inconsistency in the naming conventions applied to articles where a line opened from Point A to Point D and was later cut back to Point C and then again to Point B.

For example, Orbost railway line reflects the name of a line opened from Melbourne that originally ran through to Orbost, but has since been cut back to Bairnsdale, while Warrnambool railway line, Victoria reflects a line that originally ran from Melbourne to Port Fairy that has since been cut back to Warrnambool.

I imagine this has probably been discussed before, although couldn't find, but has a protocol been established? I would have though the article should be named to reflect the line's name when at it greatest length (ie Point D), with redirects established for subsequent shorter terminating points (B & C). DCB1927 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a naming convention as such. I'm not familiar with Australian lines, but am with UK ones. The Hastings Line refers to one of three railways that end up at Hastings, East Sussex, the others being the Marshlink Line and the East Coastway Line. The first of those two takes its name from modern Train Operating Company naming dating to the 1990s/2000s. I always knew it as the "Ashford to Hastings Line". The second is probably of similar origin which I always knew as the "Hastings to Brighton Line". We also have the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article, which covers part of the original (pre 1868) South East Main Line and which I knew as the "Redhill Line", even though it is one of three lines that go to Redhill. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Titles of articles about non-State Railways

I think that the article about the entity which actually was a State Railway, should be renamed Norwegian State Railways. During the 1980s and 1990s there were State Railways which became privatized, in part because government employees are more expensive than workers in the private sector. None of the articles about these privatized companies ought to be called "... State Railways". The present-day successor is Norske Statsbaner akseselskap which is an aksjeselskap, and abbreviated in various ways including Norske Statsbaner A/S. (In Sweden one avoided the privatized railway companies having "State Railways" as part of their name.) Does anyone agree with me that an article about a non-State Railway should not be named "... State Railway"? At present the there are two articles , where at least one of the articles might need a change of name: [1]and [2]. --Creambreek (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mission City stations in BC

Please see Talk:Mission_City_Station#older.2C_original_station, I don't have time/energy to create an article on the station and am not sure about all the WP:TRAINS templates and parameters. Please have a read of this source.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)