Template talk:Track gauge/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please add

Please add these specifications.

  • 6.35mm is really {#ifeq:|y|6.35 mm (0.25 in)|6.35 mm (0.25 in)}}.
  • 7 mm (0.276 in) is really {#ifeq:|y|7 mm (0.276 in)|7 mm (0.276 in)}}.
  • 16.48mm is really {#ifeq:|y|16.48 mm (0.649 in)|16.48 mm (0.649 in)}}.
  • 21.97mm is really {#ifeq:|y|21.97 mm (0.865 in)|21.97 mm (0.865 in)}}.
  • 0.189in and 0.189" are really

0.189 in (4.8 mm).

  • 0.315in and 0.315" are really

0.315 in (8 mm).

  • 0.354in and 0.354" are really

0.354 in (9 mm).

  • 0.709in and 0.709" are really

0.709 in (18 mm).

  • 0.741in and 0.741" are really

0.741 in (18.83 mm).

  • 0.748in and 0.748" are really

0.748 in (19 mm).

  • 0.866in and 0.866" are really

0.866 in (22 mm).

  • 69in, 69", 5ft9in and 5'9" are really

5 ft ​8 78 in (1.75 m). (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for the delay, I have now added these. Keith D (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:RailGauge#Clean-up below for the explanation as to what happened here. Peter Horn User talk 16:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
For London and Blackwall Railway#History please add 5 ft 12 in (1,537 mm) or 60.5 to replace 5 ft 0 12 in (1,537 mm). Peter Horn User talk 00:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This, at least, is verifiable - see
where it states "The [London &] Blackwall line, laid first to a gauge of 5 ft. 0½ in." --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
For FEVE#History 1062mm instead of 1,062 mm (3 ft 5.8 in) and perhaps 915 mm (3 ft) instead of 915 mm (3 ft 0 in) or 915 mm (3 ft). The latter, however, is absurd when 914 mm (3 ft) would do. Peter Horn User talk 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that FEVE's 915 mm gauge is actually 3. I don't know where the 1,062 mm comes from, as it is uncited, both at FEVE and es:Ferrocarriles de Vía Estrecha. Tim PF (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
For Rail gauge in Ireland, Dublin tramways#Dublin and Lucan Steam Tramway & Dublin United Transport Company#Rail Gauge please add 62+3/16in instead of 5 ft 2 316 in (1,580 mm) Peter Horn User talk 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That 5 ft 2 316 in (1,580 mm) is a rather strange size, and was changed from 63 in this uncited edit by Suckindiesel (talk · contribs). Tim PF (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting...Peter Horn User talk 21:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
For List of rail gauges#Medium gauge (Bulgaria) please add 1013mm instead of 1,013 mm (3 ft 3.9 in) ​3 910 Peter Horn User talk 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
And if you do, could you correct the 1,009 mm (3 ft 3 2332 in) to give "3 ft 3​57 in", please? Tim PF (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
See my request Template talk:RailGauge#Rail gauge correction required below. I'll put a post on User talk:Keith D
Are any of these figures verifiable? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Gauge

The alternate name given for 1600 gauge is Victorian broad gauge, which redirects onto Rail gauge in Australia. There is an Irish gauge article, which gives due prominence to its use in Victoria (Australia) and Brazil. Curiously, the Rail Gauges in Australia article fairly consistently refers to it as Irish gauge, and redirects back to Irish gauge. So, could the alternate name be change to Irish gauge, please? Tim PF (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can be done if there is agreement. It may be worth dropping a note to the Trains project to get a broader view on this. Keith D (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
For anyone puzzled:
--Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the comments here and at WT:TWP, I agree with the change.oknazevad (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I will change it as no objections. Keith D (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think RedRose's entry might puzzle some people even more now. Tim PF (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  between imperial & metric values


Is there a good reason for having the   between the two measurements (I understand its presence between the numbers and the units). Could we have an option to have a plain space instead? I'm having trouble formatting List of steam locomotives in Slovenia because of the extra space taken up by not wrapping the gauges. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a wrap parameter to allow for wrapping before the parentheses if the space available is insufficient for it to display on a single line. Just add wrap=y to the template to allow it to output a normal space. You will have to try it out to see if it solves your problem. Keith D (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well it solves the problem I was having, but you need to make the al=on/wrap=y combination work as well. I'd suggest using {{Nowrap}} if you've not already found it, then going back to normal spaces. What was the reasoning behind the templates current behaviour? I would normally expect wrapping to be on, not off. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of the {{Nowrap}} is employed but the additional processing for the al switch is separate from that. I have no idea of the reasons behind the way the output is presented. I appear to have inherited the maintenance of it after making a change that someone requested. I have since had to rewrite it as the original used the {{convert}} template and kept failing to load when there was high server load but I maintained the same functionality. Keith D (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the changes. <code>}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{al|}}}}}|on|&nbsp;{{#switch:{{{1}}}</code> just needs to have the &nbsp; swapped for a normal space to allow the al=on/wrap=y combination to work. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It will need a fudge as it removes the space when I tried it out. Keith D (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have put in a fix for that - it will still incorrectly wrap if there are 2 words in the gauge name without specifying wrap. Keith D (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Does &#20; help? Cheers!Railwayfan2005 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Standard gauge

I'd like to suggest that someone with template expertise (at WP:WPT perhaps?) change {{RailGauge}} so that Standard gauge ({{RailGauge|ussg}} and {{RailGauge|1435mm}}) is displayed as 4 ft 8 ½ in (1,435 mm) or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 ½ in) instead of 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm) or 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) Using &frac12 (or some similar other character) is more legible and doesn't interfere with the interline spacing. Thanks. (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the fractions are output the same way you cannot just change one specific one to be different to the rest. It is better for reading with the enlarged characters rather than the smaller characters which are unreadable in some cases. Keith D (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1.8m gauge

Please add these specifications.

  • 1.8, 1.8m, 1800 and 1,800 mm (5 ft 10 78 in) are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.
  • 71, 71in, 71", 5ft11in and 5'11" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}. (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:RailGauge#Clean-up below for the explanation as to what happened here. Peter Horn User talk 15:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Breitspurbahn and modelling tracks

Please add these specifications.

  • 0.512, 0.512in and 0.512" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.512|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=13}}.
  • 0.551, 0.551in and 0.551" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.551|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=14}}.
  • 0.945, 0.945in and 0.945" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.945|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=24}}.
  • 1.339, 1.339in and 1.339" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.339|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=34}}.
  • 1.89, 1.89in and 1.89" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.890|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=48}}.
  • 2.52, 2.52in and 2.52" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=2.52|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=64}}.
  • 118, 118in, 118", 9ft10in and 9'10" are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=9|in=10|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2997}}. (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:RailGauge#Clean-up below for the explanation as to what happened here. Peter Horn User talk 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian gauge

Please add the broadest of the three Italian gauges, namely 1445 mm. It is used on some urban networks in Italy (eg the Milan tram network, about which I am presently creating a new article), and also in some other countries. The other two Italian gauges, 700 mm and 950 mm, are already covered. Thanks, Bahnfrend (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you want for the conversion? Keith D (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to check. I understand that the usual conversion is 4' 8.9". Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Keith D (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again

For List of railway companies in Switzerland#Companies in operation today (standard gauge), (1200 mm gauge) vs 1,200 mm (3 ft 11 14 in). I thought I had found them all. Peter Horn User talk 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What conversion do you require? Keith D (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The conversion of 1200 mm to ft and inches e.g. 1,200 mm (3 ft 11.2 in) vs 1,200 mm (3 ft 11 14 in). Peter Horn User talk 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The reverse would be 3 ft 11 14 in (1,200 mm) Peter Horn User talk 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1,200 mm (3 ft 11.24 in) is more like it. Peter Horn User talk 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done} Keith D (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you change 0.24 in to 1/4 in? Peter Horn User talk 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done - I have changed it. Keith D (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink the Alternate Name only

Could we have an additional option to wikilink the alternate name, without wikilinking the unit labels (as per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK, etc.)? I would suggest this should be "lk=al" (with or without the "al=on"), or alternatively using "al=lk" if that's easier to implement.

Whilst on the subject of alternate names, I notice they all start with a capital letter, including 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge, which is more commonly written all lower-case, as standard gauge (the others are all [based on] proper names, and rightly start with a capital letter in English). Could that be changed, or might it be better to implement a new option, eg "al=lc"? Tim PF (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The capital can be easily changed to lower case, if that is what is required.
On the other point probably a separate option would be easiest to implement, may be lkal = on, and drop the lk=on linking the alternative name using it to only link the units. Though this would loose links in articles and may need a BOT to go round adding the new option to existing ones using the lk=on flag. Any idea how many articles use the option? Keith D (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the source in any great detail, and I'm quite happy for you to implement it in the easiest way possible to give the required effect. I think, however, that it might be useful to attempt to quantify the problem before proceeding.
I haven't a clue how many articles use the option, but I guess there may be quite a lot, particularly in {{infobox locomotive}} and {{infobox rail line}}, where, for example, {{RailGauge|sg|al=on|lk=on}} has been used to get a link to standard gauge, but the links to the units are merely regarded as a side effect.
  • If those are the majority of the usage of the "al=on|lk=on" combination, the way to proceed may be different from if most usages really want the links to the units.
  • If, on the other hand, the combination is not often used (where there is an alternate name), then I suppose it should be possible to direct a BOT to edit them selectively.
  • If the usage is huge with no clear pattern, would it not be easier to implement it in a slightly more complicated way that didn't lose existing links, and forget the BOT?
I also wonder if the "al=on|lk=on" combination is used with gauges such as metre gauge (m) or Russian gauge ((1520) which (currently) have no alternate name (and does that matter?). Tim PF (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
After a bit of playing around I have added a new parameter |allk= which can be used to wikilink just the gauge name when set to "on". If |allk= is not present and |lk= is set to "on" then both the gauge name and units will be linked.
1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge and 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge
Keith D (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

530 mm - 21 inch

Please add 530 mm -> 21 inch OR 1 ft 9 inch TrackConversion (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

530 has not yet been added (inserted). Peter Horn User talk 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
See below where indicates conversion should be to 20.9. Keith D (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gauges between 1 ft and 2 ft

There is a problem with the templates for the gauges between 1 ft & 2 ft. These templates currently produce the rather strange output of "1 ft X in" (the variable X changing according to the gauge) even though that is NOT how people speak when referring to these gauges. We all know that in common speech nobody talks about the "1 foot 3 inch gauge" - the term used is always (in my experience) "the 15 inch gauge". Railways of this gauge refer to themselves as "15 inch gauge" and not as "1 foot 3 inches gauge". It is confusing and misleading to have this output from the template that fails to match common parlance. This obviously applies particularly to the more common gauges where the name in inches only is commonly heard, especially 15" and 18" gauges. Interestingly, railgauge 12.25 already conforms, by producing an output of "12 & a quarter inch" rather than "one foot and a quarter inch"! It would be good if the others between 1 foot and 2 feet could do likewise please. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully. If I see 1ft3in I have to stop and think, "hang on, that's 12+3 = 15in gauge!" -- EdJogg (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing to do is to look at the editing history of the relevant template. Any changes made without consensus by a sock of a banned editor may be reverted at any time by any editor without needing to seek consent to revert. I support the use of "whole number of inches" for gauges under 2'. Fractions to be written without use of the {{frac}} where possible, and certainly for ¼, ½ and ¾. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, TC isn't guilty this time. Keith D (talk · contribs) seems to be most active here recently. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Us mere mortals see a red padlock on this page, so we have to request changes here. But I think you'll find this edit on 5 June 2010 changed (13 ≤ gauges ≤ 18) to use 1 ft x in. The requesting thread is Template talk:RailGauge/Archive 1#ft in and then carries on at Template talk:RailGauge/Archive 1#Fifteen inch gauge. It looks like Peter Horn unilaterally asked for the changes, which Keith D would not revert when asked by Andy Dingley and Globbet since Peter Horn would not give his consent. Tim PF (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If you look above to my request at #Irish Gauge, Keith's reply was Can be done if there is agreement. It may be worth dropping a note to the Trains project to get a broader view on this. I did so, there was consensus, and the change was made. Now, was that because I was relatively new, or as a result of the Fifteen inch gauge changes? Tim PF (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Fifteen inch, and to a lesser extent eighteen inch, are known under just those names (more so than "15 inch"). I don't have any knowledge of those between eighteen and two foot, but linguistically it's a general construct that the small unit is used in isolation until there are multiple of the large unit in use, i.e. "23 inches" is used, but "twenty five inches" isn't, and this applies just as much to carpentry as it does to gauge. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. User:Peter Horn may be able to find multiple instances of "1 foot 3 inch gauge" without difficulty. That still does not make it the normal usage. Unfortunately, from my limited past experience, Peter seems to regard consistency and uniformity as paramount. Globbet (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did a websearch earlier on, and found loads of them, but the top ones were all derived from WP, even though many of them neither acknowledged WP, nor the CC licence. Once I'd bypassed the WP derived occurrences by comparing "1ft 3in" with "15in", I got About 1,130 results against About 4,460,000 results, although I didn't check them all. Tim PF (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection if someone with the necessary parsing skils starts the correcion(s) with 356 / 14 at the template level and, as his/her time resources permit, end as soon as possible with 356 / 23.75 showing inches only both in the output (from metric) and in the input. The new format will automatically appear wherever the template is used in any article. When the work is done at the template level the output etc. at the article level takes care of itself. Peter Horn User talk 02:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The Revision history of Template:RailGauge would appear to tell me that any one, or all, of the following users appear to have the skill(s) necessary to make the above mentioned change: Amalthea, MZMcBride, Slambo, Tivedshambo. Do not count on Gwernol because he retired from Wikipedia. Peter Horn User talk 01:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I already identified that it was this edit. Whilst I doubt that it could be undone due to later edits, I think it should be fairly easy to undo it manually. I notice, however, that some gauges, such as 17, 450, 19 and 19.5 had feet and inches before, so perhaps it's best left to an expert. Tim PF (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Has anyone seen where Fifteen inch gauge railway has gone? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably replaced by the template 15... Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
      • It has not been replaced and not gone anywhere. Just look at Far Tottering and Oyster Creek Branch Railway, found by "what links here" to Fifteen inch gauge railway. Peter Horn User talk 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I have replaced that with "15" gauge in that article. Peter Horn User talk 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Many thanks to everyone who has joined in this discussion. It seems to me that there is a clear consensus that we should return to the original "full number of inches" for the template output relating to gauges above 1 foot but below 2 feet. Thank you to Peter Horn (talk · contribs) who originally requested the change away from that format for his comments and cooperation. It seems that everyone is in agreement, but nobody has the skills to do the job! The person who can do this seems to be Keith D (talk · contribs), but a look at his user page reveals that he is away on holiday until next week. I'll leave him a message drawing his attention to this discussion. Thanks again to everyone. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


I've updated the template to show gauges between 12" and 20" inclusive to be shown in inches only. I've chosen 20" as the maximum rather than the requested <24", for two reasons: Firstly 20" is the largest miniature railway (the Scarborough North Bay Railway), and secondly, some nominally 2 ft railways are actually 1' 11½" or 1' 11​34", and it seems odd (at least to me) to describe them as e.g. 23½". However, if there is consensus to change these distances as well, let me know, or update Template:RailGauge/sandbox and request the changes to be updated using {{editprotected}} (remember, there are probably very few, if any, administrators who watch this page).

I've also created a test cases page, which displays all the different combinations currently in the sandbox. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I think I would agree with your reasoning that 12" to 20" is appropriate, for the reasons you state. The idea was to make the output match common parlance, and people only talk about gauges which actually exist, so 20" is probably the sensible upper limit. Thanks again. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That looks good, except that "{{RailGauge|530}}" gave something wrong. It looks like you started to add it, but then forgot the conversion, which would be 530 mm (20.9 in). Having said that, I notice that it was requested by TC, who specified the wrong conversion, so perhaps it should just be removed. Tim PF (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Amended to avoid error message. Tim PF (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it for the time being - if it's required it'll flag up in category:Pages with incorrect use of RailGauge template. I'm wondering how many of these options are actually used, as this template is getting very big. I might see if I can ask a bot to extract all the uses of this template, and remove any obscure gauges that aren't used. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
In above section conversion was requested to 21in so need to decide which conversion is required before inserting. Would be good to see what conversions are actually used as I had to re-write it to avoid using the {{convert}} template when the template caused the servers to hang when load was heavy. Keith D (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Requested at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 24#Template usage. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Plastikspork has run through and summarised all the uses in User:Tivedshambo/railgauge-1, User:Tivedshambo/railgauge-2, User:Tivedshambo/railgauge-3 and User:Tivedshambo/railgauge-4. I've summarised these uses in User:Tivedshambo/railgauge-5, which ignores uses in test pages, etc, and also ignores the optional parameters. I'll look at seeing if there are any redundant options later. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Using {{convert}}, 530 mm (20.87 in) does give 20.87 inches. Eyeballing my flexible steel 33'/10m measuring tape gives me 20 ​78 inches. Ask TC, the one who requested it, where he intended to use it. Peter Horn User talk 23:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"The plot thickens", TrackConversion has been blocked indefinitely. Peter Horn User talk 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
TrackConversion (talk · contribs) was a nasty, rude, bullying, sock-puppet of an individual who has dozens of blocked accounts, 90% of them using a two-word name with the initials "TC". He or she is a highly disruptive editor, with no respect for consensus, and a startling disregard for other people. So, whilst generalisation is dangerous, there must be a tendency in anything initiated by TC to wonder if it is necessary, or even to suspect it of being malicious. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
TC was also on a crusade to metricate everything, even measurements which were only ever given in feet and inches. He wanted to group all track gauges into neat metric categories, no matter how artificial these were (the username was something of a giveaway). I think that 530 mm was just something he made up to sit conveniently between 18 inches (457 mm) and 600 mm. See his lengthy posts and even lengthier tables within the purple archive box at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Track gauge issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Whilst trying to rescue something of the mess of the List of track gauges by size article (which TC had split out from somewhere else), I had a good look around for 530mm gauge in the German Wikipedia equivalent articles, its only source ("Railroad Gauge Width". Retrieved 4 May 2011. ), and via Mr Google, to no avail.
I therefore came to the conclusion that it was madeup, and removed it from that list. I also suggested above that it be removed from this template, partly due to TC's wrong conversion, and partly due to it being TC's request. I'm sure that if it exists, it will show up sooner or later, with citations and a correct conversion.
@Peter Horn: I amended my previous comment above to suppress the error message, and I suggest that you may wish to do likewise at User talk:TrackConversion. Tim PF (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean Tim. Peter Horn User talk 15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@Peter: The error message that now results from the use of {{RailGauge|530mm}} in this edit. Tim PF (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The range 12 to 20 in (305 to 508 mm) inclusive sounds reasonable. Let 600 mm (1 ft 11 58 in), a nominal 2 feet be the lower limit of feet and inches. Peter Horn User talk 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Having said I agree with this (12" - 20" range) I now realise that we have no template for the Pleasure Beach Express in Blackpool, which is 21" gauge. It is a considerable and significant installation, but is also very definitely a miniature railway, and not an overly narrow 2' narrow gauge line. I think we do need a template for 21" to be consistent, even though I can't )currently) think of another line of this gauge. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 02:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lost article

If memory serves, we did have an article at Fifteen inch gauge railway a few weeks ago, because I linked the Far Tottering article to it. It was an article, although maybe a stub, and mentioned Heywood & Greenly. In the TC moves, this article has now been lost - no idea what it was last called, maybe 381mm track gauge or somesuch. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading it quite recently. It has been deleted, and there is a deletion log. I will raise the question with the admin who deleted it. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No I won't - you've beaten me to it! However, I will lend support! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have added my "two bits" worth at that admin's talk page.. Peter Horn User talk 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


In order to reduce the size of this template, I've removed a significant number of unused options. I realise this leaves a lot of one-way conversions (e.g. {{RailGauge|4.8mm}} works but {{RailGauge|0.189in}} doesn't), however as there are no articles which use the latter conversion, this shouldn't be a problem. Anything that's required in future can be re-instated, but please don't add entries unless they're going to be required, otherwise this template will just grow unnecessarily again. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add

Please add these specifications.

  • {{railgauge|59.06}}, {{railgauge|59.06in}} and {{railgauge|59.06"}} are really

4 ft ​11 116 in (1,500 mm).

  • {{railgauge|59.843}}, {{railgauge|59.843in}} and {{railgauge|59.843"}} are really

4 ft ​11 56 in (1,520 mm).

  • {{railgauge|76.575}}, {{railgauge|76.575in}} and {{railgauge|76.575"}} are really

6 ft ​4 2340 in (1,945 mm).

  • {{railgauge|1980}}, {{railgauge|1980mm}}, {{railgauge|1.98}} and {{railgauge|1.98m}} are really {#ifeq:|y|1,980 mm (6 ft ​5 1920 in)|1,980 mm (6 ft ​5 1920 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|77.95}}, {{railgauge|77.95in}} and {{railgauge|77.95"}} are really

6 ft ​5 1920 in (1,980 mm).

  • {{railgauge|1981}} and {{railgauge|1981mm}} are really {#ifeq:|y|1,981 mm (6 ft 6 in)|1,981 mm (6 ft 6 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|78}}, {{railgauge|78in}}, {{railgauge|78"}}, {{railgauge|6ft6in}} and {{railgauge|6'6"}} are really

6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm).

  • {{railgauge|118.11}}, {{railgauge|118.11in}}, {{railgauge|118.11"}}, {{railgauge|9ft10.11in}} and {{railgauge|9'10.11"}} are really

9 ft ​10 18 in (3 m)

  • {{railgauge|59.06}}, {{railgauge|59.06in}} and {{railgauge|59.06"}} are really

4 ft ​11 116 in (1,500 mm).

  • {{railgauge|59.843}}, {{railgauge|59.843in}} and {{railgauge|59.843"}} are really

4 ft ​11 56 in (1,520 mm).

  • {{railgauge|76.575}}, {{railgauge|76.575in}} and {{railgauge|76.575"}} are really

6 ft ​4 2340 in (1,945 mm).

  • {{railgauge|1980}}, {{railgauge|1980mm}}, {{railgauge|1.98}} and {{railgauge|1.98m}} are really {#ifeq:|y|1,980 mm (6 ft ​5 1920 in)|1,980 mm (6 ft ​5 1920 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|77.95}}, {{railgauge|77.95in}} and {{railgauge|77.95"}} are really

6 ft ​5 1920 in (1,980 mm).

  • {{railgauge|1981}} and {{railgauge|1981mm}} are really {#ifeq:|y|1,981 mm (6 ft 6 in)|1,981 mm (6 ft 6 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|78}}, {{railgauge|78in}}, {{railgauge|78"}}, {{railgauge|6ft6in}} and {{railgauge|6'6"}} are really

6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm).

  • {{railgauge|6.35mm}} is really {#ifeq:|y|6.35 mm (0.25 in)|6.35 mm (0.25 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|7mm}} is really {#ifeq:|y|7 mm (0.276 in)|7 mm (0.276 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|16.48mm}} is really {#ifeq:|y|16.48 mm (0.649 in)|16.48 mm (0.649 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|21.97mm}} is really {#ifeq:|y|21.97 mm (0.865 in)|21.97 mm (0.865 in)}}.
  • {{railgauge|0.189in}} and {{railgauge|0.189"}} are really

0.189 in (4.8 mm).

  • {{railgauge|0.315in}} and {{railgauge|0.315"}} are really

0.315 in (8 mm).

  • {{railgauge|0.354in}} and {{railgauge|0.354"}} are really

0.354 in (9 mm).

  • {{railgauge|0.709in}} and {{railgauge|0.709"}} are really

0.709 in (18 mm).

  • {{railgauge|0.741in}} and {{railgauge|0.741"}} are really

0.741 in (18.83 mm).

  • {{railgauge|0.748in}} and {{railgauge|0.748"}} are really

0.748 in (19 mm).

  • {{railgauge|0.866in}} and {{railgauge|0.866"}} are really

0.866 in (22 mm).

  • {{railgauge|69in}}, {{railgauge|69"}}, {{railgauge|5ft9in}} and {{railgauge|5'9"}} are really

5 ft ​8 78 in (1.75 m).

  • {{railgauge|1.8}}, {{railgauge|1.8m}}, {{railgauge|1800}} and {{railgauge|1800mm}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.
  • {{railgauge|71}}, {{railgauge|71in}}, {{railgauge|71"}}, {{railgauge|5ft11in}} and {{railgauge|5'11"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=5|in=10|num=7|den=8|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|m=1.8}}.
  • {{railgauge|0.512}}, {{railgauge|0.512in}} and {{railgauge|0.512"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.512|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=13}}.
  • {{railgauge|0.551}}, {{railgauge|0.551in}} and {{railgauge|0.551"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.551|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=14}}.
  • {{railgauge|0.945}}, {{railgauge|0.945in}} and {{railgauge|0.945"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=0.945|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=24}}.
  • {{railgauge|1.339}}, {{railgauge|1.339in}} and {{railgauge|1.339"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.339|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=34}}.
  • {{railgauge|1.89}}, {{railgauge|1.89in}} and {{railgauge|1.89"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=1.890|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=48}}.
  • {{railgauge|2.52}}, {{railgauge|2.52in}} and {{railgauge|2.52"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=|in=2.52|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=64}}.
  • {{railgauge|118}}, {{railgauge|118in}}, {{railgauge|118"}}, {{railgauge|9ft10in}} and {{railgauge|9'10"}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=9|in=10|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2997}}.
  • {{railgauge|84.25}}, {{railgauge|84.25in}} and {{railgauge|7ft0.25in}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=7|in=0|num=1|den=4|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2140}}.
  • {{railgauge|84}}, {{railgauge|84in}} and {{railgauge|7ft}} are really {{Track gauge/imperial/sandbox|ft=7|in=|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=2134}}.
  • {{railgauge|2134}} and {{railgauge|2134mm}} are really {#ifeq:|y|2,134 mm (7 ft) |2,134 mm (7 ft) }}. (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In view of the many problems we have had recently, please give a verifiable example of where each of these will be used. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I note that (talk · contribs) has been making several uncited edits recently, and may be the same editor who was making similar uncited original research earlier this year from that IP address. Some of the recent edits appear to propagate errors introduced by TC (such as 30 being Bosnian gauge).
Also note that I have edited the above request to use the {{tld}} template prefix to suppress the multiple error messages. Tim PF (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rail gauge correction required

For List of rail gauges#Medium gauge (Bulgaria): 1,009 mm (3 ft 3 2332 in) however 1,009 mm (3 ft 3.72 in) (3ft ​3 1825 in), and 3 ft 3 1132 in (0.999 m), please correct. Peter Horn User talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

999 mm Peter Horn User talk 00:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Are these figures verifiable? That is, assuming that the Bulgarian engineers really did use a gauge of 1009 mm, are there any books that show the same gauge expressed to an exact thirty-second or twenty-fifth of an inch? This seems awfully precise considering permitted tolerances for tracklaying. After all, the figure is not so very far from 3 ft 3 34 in (1,009.650 mm) and 0.65 mm is near as makes no odds. As for 3 ft ​3 1132 in; that's surely an imperialisation of metre gauge? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
An accuracy of ± ⅛" should be good enough for Wikipedia when converting from metric to imperial. 3 mm is probably with gauge tolerance in most cases. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The conversion in 1,009 mm (3 ft 3 2332 in) is WRONG because 3 ft 3 1132 in (999 mm). If you-all would actually have read the list you-all would have noticed that the track was originally laid to 1 and that lack of maintenance caused the rails to spread during use. As soon as proper maintenance was restored the gauge was restored back to 1. Also tolerance is irrelivant in the conversion of nominal track gauges. We already have 760 and 762 as compared to 760 mm (2 ft 5.92 in) and 762 mm (2 ft 6.0 in), a difference of only 2 mm or a nominal18 inch! Peter Horn User talk 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I'd agree with ± ⅛" (for non sub-miniature gauges), I'd be happy to go for ± 0.1", and just use one decimal place, rather than vulgar fractions, for gauges not defined in imperial. Gauges (over 4 inches) defined in imperial all appear to be in multiples of ⅛" (ie ​18, ​14, ​38, ​12, ​58, ​34 and ​78), and so are ok.
As for the Sofia Tramways, it rather looks like they slackened the tolerances for a while, but it essentially remained a nominal 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 38 in) metre gauge system, although without a source, it is difficult to tell. Tim PF (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We do have 30, but 760 mm (2 ft 5.9 in) (apparently ½ Austrian fathom, which could actually be anything in the range 759.5–760.5 mm (2 ft 5.90 in–2 ft 5.94 in)), is a distinct nominal gauge, although the two are sufficiently close that they could probably inter-run without any problems at all. Tim PF (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems then, that 1009 mm is actually an accident caused by maintenance, or lack thereof, and is a compromise between the proper figure of 1000 mm and the widest figure found, 1013 mm. This shows that giving rail gauges to an accuracy better than 7 mm (half the difference, rounded up) may be considered unrealistic; it might be better to state "1007 mm ± 7 mm, 39.6 in ± 0.25 in". It is well known amongst engineers and mathematicians that the result of a calculation must never be expressed with greater precision than any of its operands: this is not a question of tolerance, but of mathematical accuracy - you cannot state as fact that which you cannot prove. I also note that the relevant entry bears a {{citation needed}}, and, as is well known, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Is there something outside Wikipedia that refers to these figures of 1009 mm; 3 ft ​3 1132 in; 3 ft ​3 1825 in, etc.? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, again and again 1,009 mm (39.72 in) which is 9 mm (0.35 in) larger than 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 38 in) and thus NOT 3 ft ​3 1132 in! Regardless of tolerance, it is the correct nominal conversion that counts. 3 ft 3 1131 in (1,000 mm). In this case {{RailGauge}} needs to be corrected. Peter Horn User talk 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Whilst it is true that {{RailGauge}} is incorrect over its conversion of 1009 gauge, it does not necessarily need to be corrected to give "3 ft 3​57 in" or similar (as I pointed out a few days ago); it could alternatively be deleted as a non-gauge. Without any reliable source, I can see no justification for it either on this template or in the List of rail gauges#Medium gauge, where the table entry can be moved up to the "metre gauge" table, with a note about the spread of gauge using the {{convert}} template, which I have now done. Tim PF (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


I'd like to propose that all requests for additional gauges should be accompanied by evidence that such gauge really did exist, or that such conversion is quoted in reliable sources. This is primarily to prevent a repeat of the problems which we had earlier this year. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - too much hassle to clear up the mess afterwards. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - also to avoid template clutter (and slow loading). Tim PF (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The exiatence of a given track gauge may be verified from "Railroad Gauge Width".  as well as "Lijst van spoorwijdten". nl.wikipedia. . In addition there is Jane's World Railways[1]. Unfortuantely the info is available by paid subscription only[2] & [3]. Perhaps Wikipedia could become a subscriber. Peter Horn User talk 14:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately Lijst van spoorwijdten is merely a past version (dating from 25 November 2007) of nl:Lijst van spoorwijdten, which being a Wikipedia, is forbidden as a reference source. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too convinced about Zinoviev, D. "Railroad Gauge Width".  either. Tim PF (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Then the Lijst van spoorwijdten should be deleted where ever it is used in "references" and Zinoviev, D. "Railroad Gauge Width".  should have a "caveat" attached. What ever the case may be, it is the only link that lists 1945 for the Hollandsche IJzeren Spoorweg-Maatschappij. Peter Horn User talk 17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No, no, Lijst van spoorwijdten was last revised on 28 mei (May) 2011! Ditto nl:Lijst van spoorwijdten ("geschiedenis"). The Dutch article uses Zinoviev, D. "Railroad Gauge Width".  as an external link Peter Horn User talk 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The current version was last revised 28 May 2011, yes, but Lijst van spoorwijdten is a link to an old version. Very close to the top is the text "Dit is een oude versie van deze pagina, voor het laatst bewerkt door Robbot (Overleg | bijdragen) op 25 nov 2007 om 01:30.", which is Dutch, but it means "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robbot (Talk | contributions) on 25 November 2007 at 01:30. You will see a similar message at the top of any old version on English wikipedia as well, but it's easier to spot because of the pink box, see here, for example.
But it doesn't matter at all how old the page is, see WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the "fine print". So we can start to eliminate this link. Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope some one can find a better (more autheritive) list on the web than Zinoviev, D. "Railroad Gauge Width". , but that will take some doing. In the mean time, as I mentioned, I found that my 1969-70 edition of Jane's World Railways does not yet mention Iberian gauge for either for Spain or for Portugal. So much for absolute reliability. Peter Horn User talk 02:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
But is Mr Zinoviev a reliable source? I'd like to establish where he gets his information, first, which so far seems to be fairly accurate. I cannot see any real trace of sources, but neither does it appear to be WP:CIRCULAR. As it is, I'm cautious about citing it, but do not feel the urge to remove it as a reference at the moment. Tim PF (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

New request

I have been ask to add "For Georgian Railways#History please add (912mm) to replace (912 mm (2 ft 11.91 in)*)" by Peter Horn but the source in the article is a dead link. Can anyone verify this entry? Keith D (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The railways of much of the former Russian empire were built to feet-and-inches measurements, not metric, so this is likely to be an approximation for an exact 3 feet (914.400 mm). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

More missings:

HTML2011 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

2000 mm is verifiable, but why are the other two required? Can you provide sources that give these specific gauges? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
See List of track gauges by size. HTML2011 (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No references are provided for those gauges in that article. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
For Minimum gauge railway, 15.3 instead of 1 ft 3.3 in (389 mm). Peter Horn User talk 17:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Make that 15.75 for the Yunnan Burma Railway instead of 400 mm (15 34 in). Peter Horn User talk 18:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again, for Cairngorm Mountain Railway and Cairngorm Mountain Railway#History 2000 instead of 2,000 mm (6 ft 6.74 in) or 2,000 mm (6 ft 6¾ in)
 Done I have added 2,000mm conversion. Keith D (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


For Pakistan Railways#Gauge: (1676) ({{tl:RailGauge|1676|disp=or}}) instead of (1,676 mm or 5 ft 6 in) etc & for ALCO MRS-1#Development {{tl:RailGauge|ussg|disp=or}} instead of 4 ft 8 12 in/​1,435 mm etc. Peter Horn User talk 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1676 and 4 ft 8 12 in or 1,435 mm, the "or" still does not show! Peter Horn User talk 16:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I have modified the sandbox version for the change in the metric to imperial conversion mode. If you want to check it out and see if there are any problems. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
"disp=or" still does not work here. Peter Horn User talk 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure you are calling the sandbox version and for a metric to imperial conversion otherwise it will not display? I only changed one so that you could check it out and give some feedback to ensure that it does not cause problems with the various flags/options available to the template/ Keith D (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me, but where do I find the sandbox version? Peter Horn User talk 22:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
On the template page, at the bottom of the documentation is a box containing three lines; the second reads
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (edit | diff) and testcases (edit) pages.
That is one of the standard positions for a sandbox link. More information may be found at Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternate name and link for meter gauge

Seems a bit perverse that we don't have an alternate name and link for metre gauge, which must be one of the most common gauges world-wide, and certainly more common than some (like Cape) gauges that do already have them. Or at least my attempt to request them doesn't work.


{{RailGauge|sg|al=on|allk=on}} yields 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge
{{RailGauge|cape|al=on|allk=on}} yields 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) Cape gauge


{{RailGauge|metre|al=on|allk=on}} yields 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 38 in) metre gauge

Any chance of adding this, or telling me what I'm doing wrong?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no code for it, but it's a reasonable request, so I've added it. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Error with RailGauge|900

The "Railgauge|900" template ( 900 ) produces an incorrect result, since 2 ft 11 1/2 in would convert back to 902 millimetres.
The correct result would be 2 ft 11 7⁄16 in ( 2 ft 11 716 in (900 mm) ).
Could this please be fixed.
André Kritzinger 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another rail gauge

For Dublin tramways#Dublin and Lucan Steam Tramway and Dublin and Lucan tramway#Closure 62+3/16in or 62.1875 instead of 5 ft 2 316 in (1,580 mm) gauge. Yet this gauge may be not authentic and may really be 63 gauge [4]. There is also Track gauge in Ireland. Peter Horn User talk 16:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done added 62.1875. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another new one

For DB Class V 51 and V 52#Development and design 860 instead of 860 mm (2 ft 9.86 in). 23:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Peter Horn User talk

 Done Keith D (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
0.86 in = ~ 55/64 in Peter Horn User talk 03:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another track gauge

For Washington Metro 56.25 and/or 4ft8+1/4in instead of 4 ft 8¼ in (1429 mm). Peter Horn User talk 03:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

56.25 in (1,429 mm) Peter Horn User talk 03:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Also for Washington Metro rolling stock. Peter Horn User talk 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done Keith D (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Another esoteric addition

For articles dealing with lines in the Toronto area, background information, including that noted at http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/TSR/junction.htm, mention that there was a horse car track gauge of 4 feet 10 3/4 inches in use on some lines in that area prior to 1917. I believe that works out to 1492 mm. Please add this to the selection, as it would be useful in articles such as that for the Toronto Suburban Railway.Raellerby (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. This is close to:

These Welsh again

Resolved: Typo from source

Can someone take care? They had 23.25. It's called Ffestiniog Railway, but in Welsh: Rheilffordd Ffestiniog (not redlinked?) [redirect]. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say: should gauge 23.25 be included or be edited elsewhere? -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Not yet taken care of. Peter Horn User talk 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
What conversion do you want? Keith D (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Looked at the source. The railline website itself, history page, says: The 23.5 inch gauge (just short of 2 feet) [5]. Then the original gauge would be 23.5 (covered here). I could not find any 23.55 on the site (in little time). The newly laid track can have a different gauge, to be found. I changed the page to say "23.5". (By now, the red error is gone so we can close this one). -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

To the nearest 1/16

Compare 760 with 760 mm (2 ft 6 in) or 760 mm (29.92 in). Me thinks the output should be 2 ft 5 ​1516 in. Peter Horn User talk 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. btw, 116 inch (1.588 mm). Is there a torerance defined in gauges? -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There must be something of the sort, because you can't expect 100% accuracy in the laying of track. I've never seen a tolerance actually written down, but taking standard gauge as an example: as is well known, this is 4 feet 8 12 inches (1,435 mm). However, it isn't always that figure. In the early days, Stephenson's lines were laid to 4 ft 8 in (1,420 mm) until it was found that there was too much friction between flange and rail - so the flange-to-flange dimension was kept at 4'8" with the rail gauge being widened by half an inch. More recently, British main lines have been laid to a nominal gauge of 1,432 millimetres (4 ft 8.4 in) for over 30 years, so a variation of 3 mm is easily accommodated without altering the wheels of rolling stock - this narrowing helps to prevent hunting at high speed.
We might imagine that a nominal 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm) allowed a tolerance of 14 in (6.4 mm), so the minimum gauge would be 4 ft 8 14 in (1,429 mm). If the modern 1432 mm gauge has a tolerance equal to the difference between it and the established standard gauge - 3 mm - its minimum would also be 1,429 mm (4 ft 8.3 in).
Rail gauge tolerances are probably of the order of one-eighth of an inch. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It's the definition that counts, not the tolerance(s). We have 1432 for Hong Kong. Peter Horn User talk 23:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it defined in mm or in inches? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Rail transport in Hong Kong#Rail gauges and power supply defines it in mm. Peter Horn User talk 03:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This example is trivial, because the ms end up nicely in ​18 inches. The example in the opening line is more to the point. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The British 1,432-millimetre weirdness is now phased out (being undone and restored back to 1,435 millimetres). New track, replacements and upgrades should all be TSI compliant now as nominal 1,435-millimetre except for odd bits of replacement. The GB Rail Safety and Standards Board GCRT5021 Track System Requirements in paragraph defines GB track gauge as 1,435 mm plus in paragraph 2.11.3 design-speed related tolerances 1,430–1,450 millimetre for plain main line track, and up to 1,426–1,465 millimetre for off-piste slow-speed. The specified critical upper threshold is 1,480 millimetres whereby rail traffic is stopped until it's fixed. Earlier revisions of GCRT5021 did still allow laying lengths of 1,432 millimetre during replacement works, but that explicit paragraph has been removed, with only the allowed tolerances given in its place. —Sladen (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The input can be either mm or inches. The ouput should be as closely as possible reflect the input without taking tolerance into consideration. Example 762 or 30. In that case the conversion is exact. The actual layout of the track is immaterial. 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Peter Horn User talk
We already have 56.25 gauge for the Washington Metro, but not the reverse {{RailGauge|1429mm}}.

Peter Horn User talk 03:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We cannot leave out the margin of precision. If the railway company writes in mm, the number implies a precision. If we convert that to inches, the significant figures are there. Another solution would be: follow the Railway Company definition: if they define in inches, we mention them first (and the conversion is bracketed). We should not revert that. -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Back to the opening issue: going from 760 mm to inches requires a rounding (or precision). 760 mm converts to 29.92125984 in. To get 760 mm: 29 ​78 inch is wrong by 1.175 mm, 29 ​1516 inch is wrong by 0.4125 mm. I see no reason to use the higher error. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok I have made the change to this one. Keith D (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Checking: 2 ft 5 1516 in (760 mm) Peter Horn User talk 01:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Another odball

For Wuppertal-Vohwinkel–Essen-Überruhr railway, 820 Peter Horn User talk 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

820 mm (32.28 in), 820 mm (32.283 in)Peter Horn User talk 03:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Not yet done. Peter Horn User talk 03:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
From 820 mm: 32 ​28 is wrong by 0.85 mm. 32 ​516 is wrong by 0.7375 mm. So we should use 32 ​516. -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think that we should worry about "errors" where the difference is less than about 3 mm or ​18 inch. Can you demonstrate that the railway engineers used finer tolerances? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not have to prove anything. What you (or I) think or worry about does not matter. We only need to make the figures match as good as possible. A very good and simple check is called the round trip: what if you do reverse conversion? 32 ​516 → 821 mm, which is wrong (so maybe we even should go to ​132). -DePiep (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is 821 mm necessarily wrong? If the railway concerned lays its track to a tolerance of 3 mm, it's well within limits. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This is like the problem with ordnance calibres, although rather simpler. "820mm" is not merely a measurement, it's an ordinal name as well. Decauville, Orenstein & Koppel, or whoever it was who builds this stuff describes them as "820mm" and not "821mm". We should not mess with this naming! Unit conversion is a convenience for those sorting by gauge and for those who are metrically innumerate (or imperially innumerate, in the other direction). We'd no more rename this to 821mm gauge than we'd rename it to 32 ​516" gauge. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It is a name too, indeed. And also: when it is defined 820 mm, who are we to change that to 821 mm? Rounding issues and precision are a numerical thing in themselves, before we take a look at the practical situation. Basically, in physics measurement, the number is within half of the last (smallest) unit. So here: within 0.5 mm (so between 819.5 and 820.5 mm). If we do want to use tolerance, 3 mm is not the answer. TGV (high speed lines) are much more precise: 1 mm (​364 inch) [6]. Another point: if you use the tolerance to change the basic length, you are already consuming that tolerance. While 821 mm is within the 3 mm tolerance, after that the remaining tolerance is 2 mm (because you cannot go over the initial 820+3 limit). -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say that it should be changed to 821 mm. I wanted to stress that giving overprecise conversions is misleading. To put it another way: is 820 mm accurate to one millimetre, or to two significant figures? It might allow plus or minus 5 mm, and I wouldn't consider that unreasonable. The UK railway network is laid to a nominal gauge of 1435 mm (see this doc, section, but this is only required to be maintained between 1430 mm and 1450 mm; on lines subject to a maximum speed of less than 95 mph, this tolerance is even greater (section 2.11.3 of the same doc). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
All right you did not say to change it to 821 mm, but you'd accept it. Great link btw. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
We aren't laying PW though, we're defining the names of articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
820 is what is given in the article Wuppertal-Vohwinkel–Essen-Überruhr railway and the imperial output should be as closely as possible in fractions as is the case for example with the Iberian gauge 1668 (1,668 mm (65.67 in)*). Tolerances are irrelevant here, both input and output are "nominal". Peter Horn User talk 05:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Try 2 ft 8 14 in (819 mm), 2 ft 8 516 in (821 mm) or 2 ft 8 932 in (820 mm) Peter Horn User talk 02:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Converted: 2 ft 8 ​932 in makes 819.94 mm. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Peter Horn, how is the imperial size "nominal" in the 820 mm case? A reader ending up here by converting from inches should arrive at "820", so 2 ft 8 ​932 is best. No toleance involved indeed, but maths, precision and rounding yes. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That said, I think adding some 820 mm to the template can be done right away. If this thread ends up on a different value, we can change~that later on. The article does not have to wait. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Russian gauge

Could we add "Russian gauge" 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 2732 in) Russian gauge both as recognised input as outgoing allk link to the page (outgoing link possibly also in 1,524 mm (5 ft), as it can be a range of gauges?). If the habit here is such, the short "Russian" could be added too. Since the name is obiquous, it could have been discussed before but I could not find it. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added Russian to 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 2732 in) Russian gauge. You can use {{RailGauge|russian|al=on}} as input and link it on output with {{RailGauge|russian|al=on|allk=on}} that gives 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 2732 in) Russian gauge. Keith D (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since 1524 is Russian too, I propose adding: 1524 also returns the named link Russian gauge (as does 1520). -DePiep (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another oddball

For Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe#Tram network 1450 instead of 1,450 mm (4 ft 9.09 in). Peter Horn User talk 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Should be added because it is a used gauge, right. It would be 4 ft 9 ​332 in I suggest. Reverse calculation leads to 1450.18 mm, which rounds nicely to 1450. Since this gauge is close to the standard 1435 mm one, it makes sense to be this precise in inches (to maintain a distinction). -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done Keith D (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Merci, Peter Horn User talk 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Space after template

I noticed that, when the template is used, it displays with unnecessary "internal" spaces as well as with a space following it. The result is that, when one (naturally) types a space between the template and the following word, it causes a double space.

Examples are 2 ft (610 mm) and 600 followed by double spaces.
Examples are 2 ft (610 mm) and 600 mm (1 ft 11... (Typed out to compare).
(It looks like "ft" is followed by a double space, but not "mm".)

It even happens when the template is followed by a comma or fullstop as in 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), and 2 ft 6 in (762 mm).
It even happens when the template is followed by a comma or fullstop as in 2 ft 6 in (762 mm), and 2 ft 6 in (762 mm). (Typed out).
At least here "internal" double spaces don't happen - compare the punctiation marks after (these), (brackets).

Examples with the "al=on" option omitted display as 2 ft (610 mm) with double "internal" and single end spaces.
Examples with the "al=on" option omitted display as 2 ft (610 mm) with double "internal" and single end spaces (Typed out to compare)
(Again it's the "ft"...)

The problem does not occur when an alternative name exists, for example:
with 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) and others.
with 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) Cape gauge and others. (Typed out to compare)
(Unfortunately I cannot offhand think of a named imperial-to-metric conversion from a round foot value with no inches to see if the "ft" would screw up again....)

While I'm at it, should 11 ½ have a space in in, or should it be 11½ with no space?

André Kritzinger 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any double periods. Do you have any unusual fonts installed? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No, nothing, I use it as is. Not even on email. I use Internet Explorer, if that would make a difference.
André Kritzinger 12:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I see two instances of a triple period ("1 ft 11... (Typed" and "the "ft"...)"), and one of a quadruple period ("screw up again....)"), but these are all from your plain text, none are generated by {{railgauge}}. Does anybody else see any double periods?
Grrr... (The second language barrier tripped me up again! I'm too used to the term "full stop)".
I meant space. What the spacebar does. The issue is therefore about double spaces. My apologies! (I edited the above.)
André Kritzinger 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It is to do with the non-breaking spaces, it needs to detect if there is any inches or fraction to follow before outputting it. Keith D (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There must be a better way. Why not just make {{nowrap}} part of the RailGauge template, as in "3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm)"? (Obviously the gauge name will somehow have to be allowed to wrap, though.)
Like this with the wrong commas: ((nowrap|((RailGauge|3ft6in|al=on)))).
André Kritzinger 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|al=on}}. → 2 ft (610 mm).
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|al=on}} text → 2 ft (610 mm) text
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|al=on|wrap=y}}. → 2 ft (610 mm).
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|al=on|wrap=y}} text → 2 ft (610 mm) text
  • {{RailGauge|2ft}}. → 2 ft (610 mm).
  • {{RailGauge|2ft}} text → 2 ft (610 mm) text
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|wrap=y}}. → 2 ft (610 mm).
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|wrap=y}} text → 2 ft (610 mm) text
Why not omit the |al=on since there is no alternate name to show? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
One could. But that doesn't fix the bug, it just sidesteps it. And an instruction to that effect would have to be included in the template handling notes, making it more complex, not simpler. Besides, the "internal" double spaces are still there.
André Kritzinger 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • {{RailGauge|2ft|al=on}} expands to <span class="nowrap">2&nbsp;ft&nbsp;&nbsp;(610&nbsp;mm)</span>&nbsp; which displays as "2 ft  (610 mm) "
  • {{RailGauge|600mm|al=on}} expands to <span class="nowrap">600&nbsp;mm&nbsp;(1&nbsp;ft&nbsp;<span class="frac nowrap">11<sup>&#32;5</sup><sub>8</sub></span>&nbsp;in)</span>&nbsp; which displays as "600 mm (1 ft 11 58 in) "
All apparent spaces except the sole instance of &#32; are in fact non-breaking spaces, &nbsp;; one characteristic of these is that when several occur, the same number are displayed - by contrast, more than one successive normal spaces always shrink to a single one. The case of &nbsp;&nbsp; seems to be because the gauge is whole feet - there are no inches. If you put {{RailGauge|2ft6in|al=on}} this gives 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) and there is no double space. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There is still a space between the {{RailGauge|2ft6in|al=on}} template and, for example, a full stop. For example, 2 ft 6 in (762 mm). Instead of
2 ft 6 in (762 mm).
André Kritzinger 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Which is what you would expect as al=on should only ever be used on those gauges that actually have an alternative name. The example you quote does not have an alternative name so should not have al=on on the template call. Keith D (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not what the handling notes say. At present it just reads "The al, lk and disp parameters are optional."
It does not specify that "The al parameter should never be used with any un-named gauge." And if it did, a list of those named gauges where its use would be permissible should be included.
André Kritzinger 23:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have tweaked the imperial conversion in the sandbox to see if it solves the double spacing problem. If you can try this out and let me know if it solves the problem, without creating new problems, I can put live. Keith D (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I made some comparisons:

The double space after "ft" is fixed, thank you, and it doesn't look like there's any new problem. The double space from the unnecessary use of "|al=on" still happens, though.
(While you're tweaking, remember to also check the "Railgauge|900" and "Railgauge|900mm" template result: "2 ft 11 1/2 in" instead of "2 ft 11 7⁄16 in")
André Kritzinger 23:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have put the modified imperial template live and changed the conversion for 900mm. Keith D (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done} as for the double spaces within. Examples show it looks OK. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Reopened below, here. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done as for the original problem (trailing space). See edit request below. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit proposal (capitalised input for gauge name)

  • About the code that adds the alternative name, right after the #default line. It now says:

For correctness, it should be:


As it is now, capitalised input like "Standard" is not recognised here. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  • A nearby issue: when the al=on does not fire (there is no alternate name found), the template produces a final space (that would preceed the alt name). This is not preferred. I have proposed, in the {{RailGauge/sandbox}} (this edit), to only produce the space when an alt name is found. The sandbox also has the lc-issue solved. -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue was raised earlier above in #Space after template. I did not that one before I posted here.
So: >3 ft (914 mm)<. The sandbox shows a fix: >3 ft (914 mm)<. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose to put the full {{RailGauge/sandbox}} code into the live template. It should solve both issues. -DePiep (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Iberian gauge

Could we add "Iberian" gauge as a gauge by name, and linkable to Iberian gauge? Currently only numeric input is available: 1668. -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The traditional Spanish and traditional Portuguese gauges are different by 9 mm, although there is interoperability of rolling stock at moderate speeds. Afterbrunel (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
So it would be wrong to state: Iberian gauge=1668mm? Then I'll drop the proposal. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Tatra K2 & Tatra T2 mention(ed) a gauge of 1,535 mm (5 ft 0.4 in). Does such a gauge actually exist? And if so, where? I have changed it to 1524. Peter Horn User talk 23:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Above, at #Russian gauge, I have just repeated my proposal: input 1524mm can return a link to Russian gauge too (as does input 1520mm). -DePiep (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
But that does not answer my question: From where does the gauge 1,535 mm (5 ft 0.4 in) come? Which, if any, tram systems in the former USSR, now Russia etc., used it? Peter Horn User talk 14:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not claim I was. I was just noting that you changed it to Russian gauge, which makes a bit more sense here than just the number 1524 mm. I did do some research on 1535 mm too, but did not find anything noteworthy. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That is probably because 1535 mm gauge did not ever exist. Peter Horn User talk 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit proposal (prefixed space in imperial inch-with-fraction situation)

Issue: Currently, they have a leading space in some situations (actually an nbsp). This space shows in tables (like {{RailGauge}} documentation) and infoboxes. Examples:

  • >2 12 in (64 mm)<
  • >2 18 in (53.975 mm)<
  • >2 12 in (64 mm)< wrap=y
  • >2 18 in (53.975 mm)< wrap=y

Cause: It happens when 1. imperial units are put first, and 2. no ft is defined or shown, and 3. the inch measure has a fraction (not decimals).
Solution: I have adjusted the subtemplate {{RailGauge/imperial/sandbox}} (in its sandbox; this version). Note: the main {{RailGauge}} is not altered.
Testcases: Sandbox checks:

  • >2 12 in (64 mm)<
  • >2 18 in (53.975 mm)<
  • >2 12 in (64 mm)< wrap=y
  • >2 18 in (53.975 mm)< wrap=y

See alse {{RailGauge/testcases}}: the issue is gone, and no new issues arise. Being a technicality, I think this is not controversial.
Edit request replace {{RailGauge/imperial}} with all code from {{RailGauge/imperial/sandbox}} (this version). Do not touch main template RailGauge. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Paused the request. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Reactivated the request. Situation for |wrap=y now covered too. See testcases. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Done OK I have put live - revert out of problems are found. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Did not see aberrations so far. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)