This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
I know who has tons of info on Budd rail cars
I worked at a Budd plant in Shelbyville, KY from 1989-1999. My boss, William J. Davis came from the red lion plant to Budd in KY. He had tons of photos and knowledge of the history of Budd. More than what's included under the Budd Company wiki page. He was from Philadelphia but May still be living in KY.
I'd favor a merge from "Railroad" to "Branch". The railroad didn't really have an independent existence-it was always a "paper" railroad operated by large companies.
Choess (
talk)
21:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE - Done. I swiped some hidden text on the rail trail that's supposed to replace the branch so you people can use whatever elements of that you find necessary. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
16:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
On French Wikipedia, there is already a similar set of articles, some of them referenced. In the near future, I will modify the relevant Wikidata pages to create interwikilinks between the two sets of articles.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
01:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed as a block-evading sock of Pumpie, I'm afraid. Please feel free to recreate any of the articles you think worth it (or to ask the deleting admin to undelete any you had worked on).
Yngvadottir (
talk)
19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there's a policy on undeleting articles that have been deleted because they were created by a sockpuppet. I take the view that articles about individual Metro system stations can be justified on the basis that Wikipedia has a
gazetteer function. Perhaps the editor who deleted the articles could be asked to recreate them as new articles created by that editor, and then Sw2nd and I (who have previously collaborated on similar articles about Vienna U-Bahn stations) could then add some more content. I am aware of a reliable source (
Groneck, Metros in France) that could be inserted as a reference in all of the articles, although I don't have a copy of it.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
They have to be done individually; you'd be better off recreating them yourself, giving priority to those that have sources on fr.wikipedia, since there was very little content and since the point of the blanket deletions is to deny. But the deleting admin is
Mark Arsten; pinging him here to save a step, since he may have guidance. By the way, the user had moved on to
Lyon Metro stations, such as
Hôtel de Ville - Louis Pradel (Lyon Metro). (I sympathise with the "There's a book but I don't have it" situation; there's one on the Berlin U-Bahn that I can't get for love or money.)
Yngvadottir (
talk)
05:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose the automatic recreation of articles created by a sock. If they pass the
general notability guideline, then there will be real sources out there which discuss the subject in depth. Use those sources. If you don't have access to a source, wait for somebody else who does; do not assume that the sock must have been honest and wholly policy-compliant.
bobrayner (
talk)
15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting automatic recreation. What I'm suggesting is that the editor who deleted a group of stub articles that have counterparts in French Wikipedia recreate them so that two editors, one of whom has identified a reliable source, can use them as the basis for further work, and link them with the French Wikipedia articles.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If any of them pass the
general notability guideline, feel free to create or recreate those, and those reliable sources can be used to build nice content. Recreating anything that has a counterpart in French wikipedia seems to be inappropriate, because French wikipedia itself is neither a source nor evidence of notability.
bobrayner (
talk)
15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
A railway station does not need to meet the general notability guideline to qualify as the subject of a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia is a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, and all railway stations worldwide qualify for an article on that basis. So, eg, the suburban railway station closest to my home has a Wikipedia article of its own, even though it is no more than a pair of platforms each equipped with a bus shelter. The geographic locations of all of Marseilles Metro stations can be found on google maps, which is a reliable source, and
this page of the other reliable source I have identified shows the Metro's two lines with the stations arranged on them. All I am suggesting is that the deleted articles be recreated, so that two other editors who have volunteered to improve them can be saved the need to reinvent the wheel in relation to the necessary templates and initial information, etc.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Railway station articles are not exempt from notability requirements. No policy or guideline says that, and the last time that notion was put to the community in an RfC, it was totally defeated. Also, Google maps is not a reliable source - for instance, it shows a station next to my inlaws' house but in reality they are a 2 hour drive from the nearest station. Even if Google Maps were a reliable source, all it says is "there's a station at location X" and that's hardly sufficient to write an encyclopædia article. Feel free to try another RfC though... or limit yourself to writing articles that pass the GNG, because they will have in-depth coverage by reliable sources.
bobrayner (
talk)
14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Bahnfred is free to create whatever articles he likes; sockpuppets don't get a
heckler's veto. Similarly, Bobrayner is free to open a proper deletion discussion for any article he chooses. While of course common outcomes aren't binding, the fact of the matter is that railway stations are generally kept at AfD. By all means we can spill more ink proving this again, or we can just write some articles and not cause a fuss.
Mackensen(talk)16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Could someone help out in that article?The history section is totally ripped off from
this website,and it's not well written,but I can't put my finger on what exactly is wrong with the article.
Guru-45 (
talk)
14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at
Wkmaster (
talk)
17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC).
I agree that it is not easy to find reliable sources online about the railways of India. However, there is a fair bit of source material available in print, especially about Indian railway history. See the list of books, etc, on
this page and
this page of the IRFCA website, and also the IRFCA's
research guide. Additionally, there is the very useful
India's Railway History: A Research Handbook by John Hurd and Ian J Kerr, and the Indian Steam Railway Society publishes an annual magazine that is worth a look; you can
download it here.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
merge & delete "UK Ultraspeed"
Hi, I think the
UK Ultraspeed article ought to be deleted and inserted to the
Transrapid page in much much shortened form as a section. It's a maglev line proposal in the UK that at this time of writing has no chance of ever getting built.
AadaamS (
talk)
14:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Adding about new unannounced trains
With reference to the edits at
Thoothukudi railway station and
Aruppukkottai railway station, i was removing some contents like "Demand for new trains, Extension of trains, etc.," on the basis of
WP:NOTTIMETABLE,
WP:NOTGUIDE and
WP:CRYSTAL. These kind of information is present in quite a lot of articles related to
transport of India articles particulary
Indian Railways the most, since almost every city/town has its own demand of introduction of new trains/buses or construction of new lines, these are either speculative and unconfirmed. Those demands may or may not happen or even keep lingering for a indefinite period of time. Hence a concrete
decision can be made on adding/removal of such informations in future. --
βα£α(
ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)
06:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If there were actually a good sources where (for instance) a local politician demanded better services, it would probably be OK to add a little text about that - but it should be added as prose, and given appropriate context, instead of writing out a long list of speculative routes &c which probably misleads readers.
bobrayner (
talk)
22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@
Useddenim: I am just following the naming of majority of LRT Station articles. So if I'm going to your lowercase argument, then a second parameter should not be observed and move all to "LRT station" and other articles such as those with "MRT Station" would be moved into "MRT station" as they also observe the same naming format?
PhilippineRevolution (
talk)
02:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add a upper/lower case switch to {{mrt}} because I didn’t find any any pages ending with “MRT station” when I created the template. It’s not for me (or you) to unilaterally dictate page naming for any given group of articles. I suggest that you just drop the issue as you’re not likely to gain consensus for your point of view.
Useddenim (
talk)
04:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I beg to disagree actually there is before but were redirected to the current "MRT Station" naming. So I say for future reference and backwards compatibility, we just add a second parameter to "MRT station" and this case would be closed.
PhilippineRevolution (
talk)
07:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This image currently illustrates the
tram stop article -- and I suggest here that LRT stops that are no more extensive than this stop don't merit being called a "station".
I suggested that there are several hundred LRT systems, world-wide, each of which has somewhere between a dozen or so and a couple of hundred stops.
I suggested that most of those thousands, or tens of thousands, of LRT stops won't ever be documented in stand-alone articles, because:
LRT stops that are merely a section of sidewalk, with a kiosk to keep the rain off waiting commuters, and a terminal where commuters can buy a ticket, or top up a smart card, don't merit the dignity of being called a "station";
LRT stops that haven't generated enough interest to have been separately covered in
WP:reliable sources don't fulfill the general notability criteria of
WP:GNG, so don't merit a stand-alone article;
There are probably hundreds of LRT stops extensive enough to be called stations, described in some detail by
WP:RS, which we will nevertheless never cover in a stand-alone article, because the RS are in a foreign language, or they just don't have any wikipedia contributor interested enough in them to write that article.
As of 2014-02-17 how many of the thousands or tens of thousands of LRT stops have stand-alone articles? How many of them have names that include either "Station" or "station"?
I checked the
Calgary LRT, and found that was a redirect to
C-Train. That system has individual articles on all its stops -- some of which are intermodal terminals, where commuters can transfer from local buses, or inter-city travel, but others, like
Banff Trail (C-Train), merely seem to be essentially kiosks with ticket dispensing terminals.1
For what it is worth, while the C-Train article itself refers to the stops as "stations", none of the stand-alone article contain either "Station" or "station" in the article title. Rather they all have the disambiguator "(C-Train)". Systems like this, where the standlone articles aren't explicitly titled "station", will skew any simple analysis of "the majority of the LRT Station articles".
Geo Swan (
talk)
16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Determining how to name articles about stations cannot be done at a higher level than the system, because standards and conventions vary so much. To determine though how to name the stations on each system is pretty straightforward:
Ignore those stations/stops that don't meet the GNG, as things that do not and should not have aritcles are irrelevant to how we title articles.
Look at the sources - do they refer to the places the rail vehicle stops as "stations", "stops", "halts" or something else?
If there is a clear common usage, use that.
If the common usage does not match the official usage, then set up redirects from the latter.
If there is no clear consensus, go with what the operator uses and set up redirects from the other form(s).
For capitalisation purposes, look at the sources again. Do they treat the word "station" (or "stop" or whatever) as part of the proper noun? Do they refer to "Robert Street station" or "Robert Street Station"?
If there is a clear common usage, use that.
If the common usage does not match the official usage, then set up redirects from the latter.
If there is no clear consensus, go with what the operator uses and set up redirects from the other form(s).
Agree a standard disambiguator (often related to the name of the system) and either apply it to all articles or apply it only where needed and set up redirects where it isn't (e.g. if your disambiguator is "(Megatown Metro)" but you only apply it where the station name is ambiguous ("Monument station (Megatown Metro)"), then have redirects to undisambiguated articles ("Jimbo Wales Plaza station (Megatown Metro)" → "Jimbo Wales Plaza station").
Set up redirects from the names of the non-notable stations/stops/halts to the list of stations page (or another suitable target) using the same naming convention (e.g. "10th Street station (Megatown Metro)" → "List of Megatown Metro stations#Chartreuse line".
Cape gauge - I am re-listing the issues with this a year after the last discussion. It is not universally used in the real world, but somehow the article is now almost saying the issue as if 3'6 gauge was originally called cape gauge, that it started in south africa and any other location on the planet that doesnt use the term is an afterthought...
and the term has crept into templates as well - not wanting to even get into google hit or other spurious arguments, the point is that there are thousands of kilometres of rail lines of 3'6 gauge around the world that have never called their local 3'6 gauge railway by that name - either in written form or otherwise. The responses in 2012 were particularly dissapointing as thoise who shoiuld have known better opposed changing the title to anything else - and we still have a factual innacuracy sitting there and creeping into templates and lists as if it was the only term ever used for that gauge.
satusuro01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Cape Gauge refers to 3'6" gauge railways in southern Africa only. Other areas (Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc.) are not Cape Gauge railways.
Mjroots (
talk)
20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Not knowing the details of the issue at hand, this is an international encyclopedia written in the English language. The article & templates should be named for what is the international name of this gauge, whatever it happens to be. Other names should then link to that article.
AadaamS (
talk)
11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Station infobox question
Could someone who is familiar with the infobox template for train stations, take a look at the s-line templates in the infobox at
Andover (NJT station) take a moment to fix it and let me know what I'm doing wrong with it. I am sadly not as familiar with some of the parameters/syntax of this template, but tried to follow the instructions. --
ColonelHenry (
talk)
15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. Right now NJTransit has not released much by way of details on the trains that would run on the line except saying 10-11 and as high as 18 trains per day. But the probability is that they would run direct into New York Penn station and/or to the Hoboken terminal. I will create that Penn Station redirect forthwith.--
ColonelHenry (
talk)
17:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ideally, referencing needs to be at least one per paragraph, but it looks like some referencing issues have already been addressed. Possibly ready for release as it stands, any objections?
Mjroots (
talk)
22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Commented there. I think we should put both imperial and metric same gauges in the same category, "by size". Those cultural differences, splitting category in two for their unit, do not help anyone. They will sort a bit strange, mm's and ft,in's mixed. That's all. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes a difficult and slowly moving issue. I envision
Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_track_gauge being by size, listing both imperial and metric named pages & subcategories. (They must be sorted to absolute size, say in 0000mm). This is wehat I mean by "no cultural issues in a gauge size". The categories "... in imperial units" and "... in metric units" should go, disappear, and never be mentioned again. Because: if one searches a gauge size, one may not know whether to look in imperial or metric size category - so they must be together. This for all gauge sizes. -
DePiep (
talk)
16:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
the Narrow category does mix imperial and metric. If you want to sort by absolute size, be my guest, you can just use the category sorting to sort by metric size. Should there remain a category with ALL the gauges? If so, you should propose to upmerge imperial + metric categories to the parent. Not sure what the value is though, I could see it as useful to see which gauges are defined metrically and which are defined with imperial.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
16:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories.
Mjroots (
talk)
20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree in opposing an upmerge or for that matter a segregation of metric and imperial gauges. The categories should be by the gauge as specified, not as converted to the other system of units.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Misunderstanding? The CfD is a proposal to change a single category name. That can be dealt with separately (for arguments go there). The "upmerging" discussion opened here is about keeping the categories
Category:Track gauges by imperial unit and
Category:Track gauges by metric unit or not. The upmerge would create one category with all gauge sizes, ft/in and mm titles together. (they could be sorted by size not alphanumerical). -
DePiep (
talk)
21:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Mangoe - Category names will not change. They stay as defined (in imperial or metric unit). It's just that these categories would be listed in one category, preferably sorted by size. It looks like
Category:Narrow gauge railways by size.
That said, I find it useless or even misleading to keep imperial and metric units in separated categories. When one searches a size, one should not be required to know the unit beforehand. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with
Mangoe. All track gauges by size should be listed in the same category by size and not be segregated by imperial and metric. Also, only the track gauges that were first designed to be metric-based (1000, 750, 500, etc.) should be listed with the metric figure first followed by the imperial conversion in parantheses. Likewise, those track gauges that were first designed to be imperial-based (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm), 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), 15 in (381 mm), etc.) should have the imperial figure first followed by the metric figure in parentheses. If there is ever any confusion about whether to have imperial or metric first, I suppose a good rule to follow would be to ask yourself, "Was the track gauge first invented in the
United Kingdom or one of its territories prior to 1900 A.D.?" If the answer is "yes," then list the imperial measurement first; and if the answer is "no," list the metric unit first. Weird ones like Bosnian gauge that are not based on imperial units or metric units could have metric listed first by default. Jackdude101 (
Talk) 2:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created and added {{Navbox rail gauge categories}}, a navbox. E.g.,
Category:Broad gauge railways. At least it can give a more structured overview. I have added the scaled gauges to this mold, that was a bit an isolated category tree (with an other naming convention, visible). Improvements are welcome, but we better be very aware of definition creep for the categories. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Template:RailGauge update
I plan to update {{RailGauge}} in a few days. Some questions:
Formatting: all imperial sized above 2ft we format as "2 ft 6 in", not "30 in". Any suggestion for the 1ft – 2ft sizes (see
these)? I guess "15 in" is iconic, but how about a "12+1⁄4 in" ?
Any article links to add? Currently we can have linkes like "
750 mm (2 ft 5+1⁄2 in)". I will add those for inputs: Iberian, Russian, Bosnian, Brunel, Breitspurbahn, Toronto, Indian, Italian 3x, Swedish 3ft. The next are unclear, and could be not general (like, only used in a country or culture): Victorian, Irish, Pennsylvanian, Ohio, Scotch. If someone can show one to be stable & unconfusing, I can add that one. Sizes can be linked too, like 3 ft (914 mm) to
three foot railways.
At the moment, articles are categorized for a certain set of gauges (for a cleanup action, ~2500 pages to check). That's all pages with these few gauges. See
Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention. Any other set of gauges you want to research this way?
I've been on a bit of a rail bridge kick lately, writing/translating articles on various rail bridges around the world. I've been using Google Scholar to pull up peer-reviewed journals that describe bridges. I've also gone to Flickr and found old pictures of rail bridges and added them here and created articles. I was looking back at some of the Partnership pages here, and the Tropenmuseum has nice pictures of railway bridges built by the Dutch, that are now in Indonesia. Ask for details and I can show you examples. Anyone want to start coordinating this?
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
My most interesting find was the Dömitz Railway Bridge. Bombed during WW2, then each end of the bridge was in East and West Germany, so part was torn down, and it's now a bridge to nowhere.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Stocklist templates
Hiya, there an a huge number of stock lists within scope of this project, and there seems to be no standard format for presenting them. I suggest we create a couple of templates which we can use to standardise the stock list presentation. Here are some typical columns
By "stock lists", do you mean a list of individual locomotives owned or operated by a railway company? To me, these are often overcluttered with unnecessary detail which is very much the realm of a trainspotter's logbook, see
Class 86 for example. We might even ask if such lists are necessary at all. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with
Redrose64 that such lists are in violation of
WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia cannot and should not list everything that has ever existed). Mentioning individual locomotives is fine as long as each unit is supported by
WP:RS.
AadaamS (
talk)
08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think stocklists are appropriate, as long as they are not too complex and are supported by (a) reliable source(s). An example of the sort of stocklist I have in mind is the one in
WAGR S class, which is sourced to the leading reliable source on WAGR steam locomotives. Stocklists like that are useful, eg. to railway modellers. I also agree that it would be helpful to have a standard format for stocklists. However, I think Railwayfan2005's suggestion above is a bit too detailed. Some of Raliwayfan2005's suggested parameters (eg wheel arrangement, gauge) are better suited to an infobox, not a stocklist. A better example might be the format of the various stocklists in articles about WAGR locomotives (see
Template:WAGR Locomotives for links to them).
Bahnfrend (
talk)
10:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Mere usefulness is not enough to include each and every unit of a locomotive series. That having a complete list of every model built might be useful for Toyota Corolla mechanic but not a reason to include it in this 'pedia. Also I think the article you mentioned places too much emphasis on nearly identical units, the list of individual units add no more information than is in the infobox, save for units having different names. It could have been summarised as "Two units are preserved, three units received extra large tenders" which would have been enough to give extra information beyond the infobox.
AadaamS (
talk)
19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I'm trying to identify some railroad-related locations, and I need some help;
From what I can see of the lower half of the Ohio state route sign, it appears to be along
Ohio State Route 91. I'll have to do a Google Maps scan for grade crossings like this.
Clearly somewhere on the
Babylon Branch in the
Town of Hempstead, New York, but I see few other clues of an exact location. As an ex-Long Islander, I really ought to know better.
The left picture appears to be just south of
Munroe Falls, Ohio on Ohio State Route 91. See Google Maps here:
[3]. The Street View images show similar characteristics: two tracks, gated crossing, similar power lines, and Ohio 91 sign. There appears to be a newly constructed building to the right leading to some differences from the picture (such as an expanded driveway and the removal of the "Do not block drive" sign). Hope this helps.
MountainRail (
talk)
17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that worked. I saw something with a mock tudor exterior across from underneath the tracks and it turns out to be the
Wantagh Inn. If nobody moved it yet, I'll start. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, the category name shold follow that eponymous article name (into plural).
I think we should rethink the naming, and in the long run comply with MOS, and find a consistent naming where we can choose (e.g. spell out numbers?). -
DePiep (
talk)
20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not a very clear explanation this was.
Categories now are renamed following MOS. Pattern examples
I can't see anything wrong with that website tbh, it looks like a perfectly legitimate magazine from what I've read. I find this all a bit suspect tbh. And rather annoying!
G-13114 (
talk)
13:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@
G-13114: I see that you have reverted some of the bot edits. Have you made your concerns known (not to the bot operator, but to whoever blacklisted it in the first place)? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've found discussion of the blacklisting at
[5]. Some of the discussion looks a bit techy and some a bit tetchy.
NebY (
talk)
15:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a simple way to list affected articles in this project? Then together we could check each one and get the links whitelisted.
Edgepedia (
talk)
20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with
User:G-13114. As far as I can see, railway-technology.com is a website that provides a reliable source of data that is often difficult to find elsewhere. Currently about 400 railway-related articles have been flagged by this bot, as shown here:
[6]. Notifications include banner tags at the top of the article and not just on the talk page. This level of flagging seems to me to be unwarranted, and does not appear to have been properly debated before being imposed. If you wish to join the (limited) discussion there has been, it seems to be here:
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Going_on_-_cbronline.com. Regards,
Hallucegenia (
talk)
08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have struggled with repeated links to airforce-technology.com which is among the External Links to many aircraft articles. I do not agree that airforce-technology.com is a
WP:RS, it contains a lot of unreferenced information and sometimes wild speculation. Further adding such links also violates the
WP:EL guidline which say that we can only add links to such sites if they provide information beyond what is required for an article to get FA status. Articles in airforce-technology.com seldom have a name of the author of the article. That hardly lives up to
WP:RS standards. Another example: www.railway-technology.com/news/newsgermanys-vms-contracts-alstom-for-29-coradia-continental-regional-trains-4208585 here also lacks a name for the article's author. We cannot say that a source is RS from a respected authority in the field if we don't even have the author's name to go by.
AadaamS (
talk)
10:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
But we're not talking about External Links here. Most of the flagged articles, like
Docklands Light Railway used as an example by RedRose64 above use railway-technology.com only as a source for inline citations. If you want to go through all 400 railway articles to find better sources for inline citations that have not been challenged for years then please do. Regards
Hallucegenia (
talk)
13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
Does anyone know where I can apply for them to be taken off the list? I added a lot of those railway-technology links myself because they contained useful information, they look like an industry magazine to me. I'm certainly not a spammer. I think this bot causing more havoc to wikipedia than any spammer could quite frankly! I'm quite busy with other stuff at the moment, so don't have much time. So any help would be appreciated.
G-13114 (
talk)
21:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the decision by some admin users to just sledgehammer the spammers by affecting tons of existing articles is just beyond me. If they want to ban a website, there should be a discussion to weight pros and cons to ban a specific website. If we have a discussion specifically about railway-technology.com and we confirm that the site is questionable, then fine. Don't just rolling everything up under some problems with cbronline.com. I have strongly raised the objection on those discussions already. Maybe more people should voice the concerns there too. I think this action to put on the blacklist was just being counter productive here.
Z22 (
talk)
04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Urgent: MTA (New York City) dead links
There are a lot of dead links on
MTA (New York City)-related pages because MTA recently moved all its pages to new URLs.
Help with editor determined to add his own photos to Japanese train articles
An editor has recently started replacing good-quality images in a number of Japanese train articles, with photos he himself uploaded, but which are unfortunately of poor to mediocre quality. I have reverted his changes on a number of occasions, as have other editors, but unfortunately he just reverts again without comment and appears unable or unwilling to communicate in any way, even after being asked him to comment, both on his Talk page and on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. I'm not happy with the choice of poor-quality images being added, but am unwilling to get dragged into an edit war, so maybe some of the editors from this project can have a look, and comment on the corresponding Talk pages or restore the better images where appropriate. The main pages concerned are:
As a bit of background, the editor involved here,
銚電神, appeared on English Wikipedia only recently after being blocked indefinitely on Japanese Wikipedia for edit warring and sock-puppetry. --
DAJF (
talk)
13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I seem to remember that this issue of someone replacing quality images of Japanese trains with inferior alternatives came up last year. I found it
here in the archives. Is it the same person?
G-13114 (
talk)
13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, but I don't think they are the same person. This user is just determined to get all of his own photos all over Wikipedia articles regardless of the quality. --
DAJF (
talk)
13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, user 134.3.252.209 keeps adding the Kayrapid text over and over again to the
Transrapid and
Maglev articles. Is this something that should be escalated? This user has reveted 3 times on the
Transrapid article, does this not violate the
WP:3RR rule? Thankful for any input.
AadaamS (
talk)
12:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi
Redrose64 no I haven't yet. I was looking for a bit of guidance as this is the first time I have encountered an editor constantly reverting like this. Having read the documentation for that template it looks like the correct thing to post to that user's talk page so that's what I've done now.
AadaamS (
talk)
18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That user seems to be using IP 91.10.95.248 as that user also reverts on Maglev and Transrapid articles.
AadaamS (
talk)
20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I semi'd both 1 week but didn't alter any content. I notice that the user has also made some very lengthy talk page posts. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I googled "Kay Uwe Böhm" because a lot of the text refers to blogs & articles individual, like email addresses he keeps reposting in commented wikicode. It happens there was a "Kay Uwe Böhm" user on
de:Wikipedia:
[7] and that user was blocked after 3 edits to German wikipedia.
AadaamS (
talk)
19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi
Redrose64, yes I suspect this too, he's being helpful with tagging all his edits with that email adress he keeps writing into his posts. It can be searched for
like this, that makes it easier to see when he starts vandalising again. Thanks for the help with the blocking, much appreciated.
AadaamS (
talk)
14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The
Category:Stations along Boston and Maine Railroad lines has categories for railroad stations in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. I know that B&M had stations in New York, but does anybody know why there aren't any articles on any B&M stations in The Empire State? Or perhaps some article on a former railroad station that's not categorized as being an ex-B&M depot? ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
13:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
What is this?
Hi train Gurus! Do any of you know what this equipment might be? I saw it at Ostbahnhof in Munich, but I didn't have time to ask any of the personnel about it. --
Slashme (
talk)
21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not familiar with German trains, but a quick Google search turned up the SPITZKE company:
website here. These cars appear to be material conveyors and hoppers used for ballast cleaning. See the details
here. Thanks!
MountainRail (
talk)
23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@
Slashme: It's a
Plasser & Theurer MFS-100 which is a "Material conveyor and hopper unit for continuous loading and unloading with a storage capacity up to 68 m³, floor conveyor belt and a pivoting transfer conveyor belt at the front". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@
Redrose64: Oh, I see! Thanks for the correction. I've changed the description to reflect that it's made by P&T and supplied by Spitzke (as it's in Spitzke livery in my photo). Is that correct? --
Slashme (
talk)
21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If I would've known there were going to be people who had something else to say about it, I wouldn't have closed the previous thread on the subject. I was under the impression the issue was resolved and everybody was satisfied. Also, there's really nothing depriving editors from starting new threads on a subject. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
17:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@
DanTD: The thing is, on this page, we don't normally wrap a thread in {{
discussion top}}/{{
discussion bottom}}: a formal closure of a discussion is very rare - in fact the last time that it happened was
three years ago. Once discussion ceases of its own accord, we normally just let the thread stand until the archiving bot decides that it's past the age limit (currently thirty days after the last posting). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Trains At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets Adikhajuria (
talk)
15:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I found mentions of it there and in a couple of other places. But I find it hard to believe no one ever wrote it up.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
13:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. I removed the AfC template - I don't have the AfC tool to wrap that up neatly; plus I'm at work so subject to interruptions. If I messed up the merge in any way, let me know; doing those still terrifies me.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that
The busman1982, having created the article in the AFC system, didn't wait for a formal AFC review but simply created another article in mainspace, identical save for the absence of {{
AFC submission|ts=20140429105204|u=The busman1982|ns=5}} and the presence of <!--- Don't mess with this line! --->{{
Unreviewed}} --
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets Adikhajuria (
talk)
15:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
20-20 Vision - Talyllyn Railway
Hi all. We are asking around 20 wikis to create an article on
Talyllyn Railway in their own language, and I wonder if we could have your help to inspire wikiprojects similar to this one on other language wikis? The railway is one of 20 articles on a little multilingual project called The 20-20 Vision of Wales Challenge. Or, if you speak other languages then please help by writing about Talyllyn. Thanks all; My Talk Page is quite useful if you need more info.
Llywelyn2000 (
talk)
07:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Lists of rail accidents
I've removed all unreferenced items from the
List of rail accidents (before 1880). I tagged all but one item as far back as September 2010, the other item was tagged in April 2011. All removed items have been copied to the talk page, so the information hasn't been lost. They can be re-added once references have been found. This shouldn't be hard, as railway accidents were often reported in contemporary newspapers. I give fair warning that I intend to treat all other lists of rail accidents linked from
Lists of rail accidents in a similar manner.
Mjroots (
talk)
21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
All lists have now been culled of completely unreferenced entries. These have been placed on the relevant talk page to enable research and referencing. Some culled entries may not be notable enough for inclusion, but that is a different issue.
Mjroots (
talk)
08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've given the
List of rail accidents (before 1880) a going over. IMHO, these lists are of the type that would benefit from the use of flagicons, but consensus is against them. Therefore I've come up with a solution to identifying the country where the accident took place. Your comments are invited before I rework other lists. Feel free to work on the lists yourself
.
Mjroots (
talk)
08:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Naming convention for railway stations in India
As like for railway stations in UK and Poland, is there any naming convention exist for railway stations in India? One common guideline followed was "XXXXX railway station", i.e., Name of the railway station suffixed by "railway station" in lower caps. What about
junction stations in India? Earlier there was a
similar issue raised at
India notice board and ended without a clear consensus, which resulted in existence of
ambiguity of such pages. Articles on junction stations in India either has "XXXXX railway station" or "XXXXX Junction railway station"? In such cases, while editing or
moving difference of opinion erupts between article creators of primary/major contributor of the article, as there exist no specific guideline(s) on relevant project page. How should they be named? If any guideline framed it'll helpful. --
βα£α(
ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(
Support)20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Since
User:Michael Barera narrowed down a category on one of my images from "Unidentified locomotives" to "Unidentified diesel locomotives," it made me want to search for others.
"XT3?" Looks fairly identifiable to me.
Same one.
There are other trains with number that would seem to make them easy to identify. I also saw three others with bad names from Fiji that I'm considering renaming. Can anybody help with these? ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The little badge on the front doesn't show "XT3" but "ХТЗ" - those are Cyrillic letters,
ХТЗ, and the Russian Wikipedia has a (redirected) page of that name,
ru:ХТЗ, where we find that they are the initials of the first three words of "Харьковский тракторный завод имени Серго Орджоникидзе" or "Харьковский тракторный завод им. Серго Орджоникидзе". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and the first two syllables of "тракторный" - i.e. "трактор" - is pronounced similarly to "tractor"; I'm sure it has the same meaning. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Awesome! I created
Category:Unidentified diesel locomotives while creating the manufacturer-specific
Category:Unidentified EMD diesel locomotives, which I created in part as a place to put
eight photographs taken in the 1960s
by my father and grandfather. If anyone could identify any of these eight locomotives (especially the Baltimore & Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad E-units that are tantalizingly close to being easily identifiable), I would really appreciate it. Locations, railroads, dates (months and years, save for one "circa"), and even some specific trains are known, so hopefully these clues might help. Once again, I would really, really appreciate any identifications that can be made. Thanks!
Michael Barera (
talk)
20:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Good for you. I can't identify that many of them, but some of them look vaguely familiar. In the meantime, I tagged two of those images for renaming, both of which are in
Rail transport in Fiji, one of which was renamed, although one of them is an old DYK image, so I hope the redirect for this one doesn't cause any glitches there. That'll give me just one more to go. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Photo opportunity in Philadelphia
Apparently the first of the new
Viewliner baggage cars is parked at the Race Street Yard adjacent to
30th Street Station. No idea how much longer it's going to be there. If anyone's in the Philadelphia area it'd be a nice picture to have.
Mackensen(talk)02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Trains At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
South Africa streetcars: double-decked and on tracks?
I recently saw a picture book of South Africa c. 1960. It clearly had double decked city transport, and rail tracked vehicles doing that. The livery showed below half and top half. Any wikilinks? -
DePiep (
talk)
23:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Double-deck tramcars were quite normal for Great Britain back in the days before everybody except Blackpool got rid of them. Blackpool still run a few of their old double-deckers - the
"Balloon" cars of 1934/35 (
pic). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Hong Kong seems to have more of them. In fact I was always under the impression they got most of them from their former colonizers. As for South Africa, didn't they use the second deck to
segregate non-white commuters? I remember reading
"Horsecars, Cable Cars and Omnibuses," by John H. White Jr. or something similar, and it had a picture of a double-decker horsecar with racially segregated decks. I would think the same policies applied to the streetcars. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
00:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Double-deck tramcars appear to have been the norm in South Africa. I have created a number of articles about them. They can be found in
Category:Tram transport in South Africa. All of the articles have an image, and also a commonscat link to more images on commons, many of which I uploaded myself.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
One piece of information that seems to be missing from most line articles is any reference to the height above the rail of the OHLE. I did some search of the net and it seem not to be available there either. Is there any reason why? --
Kitchen Knife (
talk)
23:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not constant. The maximum height of the contact wire is limited by the maximum extension of the pantograph. The wire is raised at level crossings, to a minimum of 18 ft 6 in above rail level for 25 kV AC; and the wire dips down below bridges where clearance is tight: there is a minimum clearance of 8 inches between wire and structure, and 6 inches between wire and train, for 25 kV AC. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Is that 6 inches above the load gauge top. Is there a maximum. I'm trying to work out if there is an overlap between current WCML and HS2, I suspect that at a height which gives a small clearance for an HS2 would still be reachable with the standard WCML W10 Pantographs. If not then bigger pantos can be got for WCML trains See
FAQ. --
Kitchen Knife (
talk)
22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've dug out my little booklet, known, I believe, as the "Blue Book" (it has a blue cover):
Department of Transport (November 1977) [1947]. Railway Construction and Operation Requirements: Structural and Electrical Clearances (Third ed.). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 6-10 and Annexure 'B'.
ISBN0 11 550443 5.
85 pence for 16 pages and three fold-out diagrams. I think it's available online as a scan, although I don't know where: it shouldn't be, because it's Crown Copyright, which will expire in 2027. I'm sure that there have been updates, but the essentials will be the same since the dielectric constant of air won't have changed much.
Anyway, the 8 inches (actually 200 mm) is the Static Clearance, defined as "the minimum distance required between the live parts of the overhead equipment (under any permissible conditions of maintenance and when not subject to uplift from a pantograph) and a structure or the earthed parts of the overhead equipment"; the 6 inches (actually 150 mm) is the Passing Clearance, defined as "the minimum distance required between live parts of the overhead equipment and any earthed material or rail vehicle, or between the pantograph and any earthed material, under any permissible conditions of operation and maintenance of vehicles, track, and overhead equipment". The only indication of a "maximum" that I can find is the 18 ft 6 in (actually 5600 mm) minimum headroom at level crossings. If we assume that the rail vehicle is 4 metres high, the pantograph needs to extend to at least 1.6 metres above that. I expect that all pantographs in current use can extend somewhat further: in depots, for instance, where people might be working at high level, the conductor wire needs to be raised quite a lot. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The max vehicle height for GC is 4.65m add the 15cm, comes to a nice round 4.8m giving a 800mm overlap between GC minimum and W10 minimum at crossing. As the smallest panto go up to 1.8 meters. It means that it should be possible to set OHLE height so that both could run on the same section of GC track on approaches to say stations, without modification. The rason I'm asking is that if the center 2 lines from DItton Junction to Edge hill where expanded to GC gauge to allow entrance to the
Victoria tunnel, then the lines would still be usable by standard WCML trains, for
BLOG HS2 Phase 2 Liverpool . --
Kitchen Knife (
talk)
12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The answer seems to be that the rail top needs to be atleast 1.62m below the current floor. So using slab track it's is about 2.10 that needs to be dug out. WOuld have though it cheaper than building a new tunnel.
Kitchen Knife (
talk)
23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Archive naming at this talk page is breaking the search function
I am grateful for his productivity. He is building the encyclopedia. But, he may need a bit of guidance when it comes to sourcing and content. Spot-checking his last five, concerns I see are as follows:
References added are not inline, some of which do not support facts in the article (many seem to talk of cancellations only).
Thank you for your concern Anna. Much appreciate it. I have not created a time table since the discussion but just writing the start & end time doesn't qualify as a time table does it?? If it still does then i apologize for it & will remove them from any subsequent article i create. Thanks for your help.
If we had infinite resources, then I wouldn't mind including timetable information in articles which are otherwise quite small, because we don't have the size constraints of a paper encyclopædia. However, in reality, timetable information can change frequently; enthusiastic editors often add ephemeral information which later goes stale, and we don't have a horde of editors waiting to fix errors in last year's articles; so allowing timetables guarantees that we present readers with masses of factual errors. Running frequencies are less detailed and less volatile than timetables, so I'd be OK including running frequencies as a compromise.
bobrayner (
talk)
13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Superfast1111 certainly does require a bit of guidance. He's been on a creating spree as I've noticed this week on AlexNewArtBot's India logs. My only message to him is calm down. Last time he was on a spree, he was repeatedly adding a plethora of images onto articles of Indian railway stations and messing them up inspite of repeated warnings not to do so. --
Rsrikanth05 (
talk)
18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak,
bobrayner,
Rsrikanth05 - Firstly pls accept my sincerest apologies for my mistake. I seem to have mis - interpreted the consensus but no more.
Marudhar Express was a tough article to create given that the train has three different routes for each day of the week but i'll go with
bobrayner suggestions. Thank you for your help & concern.
An unregistered editor,
IP address 178.183.135.65], has repeatedly removed perfectly good locomotive images at
Bavarian PtL 2/2 and
Bavarian Gt 2x4/4, despite my request that he should discuss this at the talk pages before doing so again. The images are good quality photographs of modern H0 scale models of those locomotives and give a better idea of livery and detail than some of the old black and white photographs. They seem entirely appropriate to the articles concerned. If other editors concur, how do we take this forward? --
Bermicourt (
talk)
14:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The articles are about the locomotives rather than the models. How do we know that the "livery and detail" are accurate?
bobrayner (
talk)
16:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Bob, thank you. That is just the kind of intelligent question that I hoped to have from the editor have before he deleted the images twice in succession without discussion. As someone who has researched Bavarian locomotives, I can confirm the models are pretty accurate and the livery corresponds e.g. to that in the Nuremberg Transport Museum where they have both originals and models on display. In any case, unless there is sufficient material on the model(s) to create a separate article, the locomotive articles are a reasonable place to display the images. Not dissimilar to artist's reconstructions of historic objects which we already use quite freely. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
We then need a
WP:RS to
verify that the models are indeed accurate to the originals. I think it's reasonable to use images of reconstructions when no image of the original exists, it does not seem the case here.
AadaamS (
talk)
12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think images of special livery belong in the article of the train company and not the article of the locomotive. There were probably many kinds of locmotives painted in that livery so it's probably easier to have a good image of a real locomotive in that livery and then state which other locomotives used the same livery.
AadaamS (
talk)
07:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In hindsight the point about livery may be a red herring. The simple question is: is it reasonable to have a good quality image of a model locomotive in an article about that locomotive, especially where the real images are poor quality black and white photographs around 100 years old? My sense is that this is reasonable as long as they don't dominate. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
21:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I would rather be content with a poor quality image of a real locomotive than a perfect image of a model. In fact it is not necessary to have any image at all and I would prefer to have no image to having a model train image, unless it be an image of some kind of replica in a museum somewhere. An alternative to add detail would be to have an image of the blueprints for the locomotive, provided they are in the public domain.
AadaamS (
talk)
12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Template {{convert}} is used in several train articles as in this example from
LSWR H15 class:
{{convert|79|LT|19|Lcwt|t|1}} → 79 long tons 19 hundredweight (81.2 t)
This message is to let people know that I'm planning some minor changes for the template.
One issue is that the plural of hundredweight should have no "s". Also, there will be some minor changes regarding what input multiple units display, as shown in the following table. The "Old output" column has fixed wikitext showing what the template currently does, and the "New output" shows what is planned.
Content of interest on Commons from National Library of Scotland?
Not sure if this would be of interest, but the National Library of Scotland has recently uploaded about 130 images related to the construction of the Forth Bridge and the collapse of the Tay Bridge, two of the most significant rail bridges in Scotland.
I notice that there seems to be a general tendency not to mention the country context in many British railway articles, whereas in articles on railways in other countries—even English speaking—it seems obligatory to do so. I think there is a touch of Brit-centric bias here, an assumption in a world-wide encyclopedia using a world-wide language that readers in other countries accessing enWP should automatically know the country of British often small lines and stations. This observation could of course concern many different types of articles on British subjects. My inclination is to add the country context into any article, other than those that could reasonably be considered a world-known location or subject. This, what I would consider (perhaps unintentional) arrogance, is even more prevalent in United States articles of all types. Any views?
Acabashi (
talk)
11:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, country should always be mentioned unless obvious. English Wikipedia simply means that this Wikipedia is in English, not that every subject has a connection to England or any other English-speaking realm. Let's assume that it's a result of negligence rather than arrogance.
AadaamS (
talk)
11:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So long as we put just one country (don't really mind which): whenever I see "England, United Kingdom" I am reminded of certain primary-school children who would continue that with "Europe, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there really is anywhere in the UK so obvious that a country name would be unnecessary. Take London, for example. There's also London, Ontario, isn't there? A more pertinent question is whether the name of the relevant county or equivalent should be included (as per London, Ontario, Canada). I note, eg, that the
York railway station article says that the station is in North Yorkshire as well as England. Although I wouldn't suggest that stations in London, England, should always say that the station is also in
Greater London, I would think that as a general rule county names should be included.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
21:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For a non-native English speaker (such as myself) it's not easy to know whether North Yorkshire is in England, Canada or Australia. Do we expect readers to click through? For instance there also
many settlements named York. So should we list county rather than country? As for London, regular use seems to be that whenever "London" is written, it's the capital of the UK that is meant, all other Londons are qualified with "London, Ontario" etc.
AadaamS (
talk)
08:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikilinks are your friend, see where [[York]] →
York or [[London]] →
London go to.
In {{
Infobox GB station}} there are two parameters |locale= and |borough=. The former is for the place (town, village, suburb) that the station is in; the latter
is documented as being "the lowest level of local government for the place where the station is situated". Both are usually wikilinked, so we might have e.g. |locale=[[York]]|borough=[[City of York]] or |locale=[[Kings Cross, London]]|borough=[[London Borough of Camden|Camden]] --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
LT fractions
Can anyone interpret
WAGR C class (1880) which contains these strange mixtures of decimal and fractional long tons in the infobox:
They were all added in
this July 2013 edit by a retired user. The "25.15+1/2" appears to be a simple addition of "19.2" and "5.95+1/2". Surely no document would give a tender weight as 5.95 LT 10 cwt?
Apart from wanting to clarify the article, my problem is that I plan to change {{convert}} so such mixtures are rejected in the future. That is, a fraction such as "25+1/2" would work, but "25.15+1/2" would give an error. The good news is that it will be possible to write weights as LT–cwt if wanted (see
above). What should the infobox show in this article?
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that the 5.95+1/2 may have been an attempt to represent 5 tons 19+1⁄2 hundredweight. This is just speculation. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That must be right now I think about it. When convert supports it (soon), I'll switch 19.2 LT to 19 LT 4 cwt and 5.95+1/2 LT to 5 LT 19+1⁄2 cwt.
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Derailment in Montana
Yesterday, there was a freight train derailment in Montana. Nothing unusual about that you may think, just one of many and probably not worth more than a mention in the relevant list.
Normally, you'd be correct, but this particular freight train was carrying 6 brand new Boeing 737-800 fuselages as well as component for B747 and B787 aircraft. Three of the wagons carrying fuselages went down an embankment, with two of them
ending up in a river. At least one of the fuselages shows clear signs of breaking around its circumference.
Is this accident worthy of a stand-alone article? Please consider it not just from the railway perspective but from the aviation perspective. We could have two, if not three brand new aircraft written off before they even flew. I'll inform
WP:AV of this discussion.
Mjroots (
talk)
16:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If the load had to do with the derailment, then more likely so. Are these exceptional transports (maybe an adjusted load gauge for the route)? -
DePiep (
talk)
17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
These are everyday production aircraft subassemblies and components, not complete aircraft or parts of significant prototypes or anything like that. As such, from the aviation perspective they are not notable in their own right. Notability might arise if the accident has a notable knock-on effect, say to Boeing's ability to do business. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a footnote to the rail line article or BNSF article; while certainly interesting, it was just a derailment. Doesn't seem to have killed anyone, or caused any more disruption than any other derailment. I suppose it's only the monetary value of the lost goods is higher than usual. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If major recommendations and/or legislation develop from this crash then it might be notable, but we'll have to wait on the NTSB report.
Mackensen(talk)16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I accidentally discovered this cache of detailed articles lingering in a retired editor's userspace. Can someone with some knowledge merge them into the current versions of the articles? Best,
Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine. I got diverted to other research. Then I had to take care of my mother. I probably wouldn't get back to this for another year.
RalphOnTheRailroad (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
21:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@
RalphOnTheRailroad: I'm glad to hear you're interested in getting back and finishing them! I just assumed that you probably wouldn't come back, given that you hadn't edited in four years, but it's good to know that you're still around. :-)
Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Small set of public domain early train images for re-use
Hi
Not sure if this is the right place or way to notify this, but I've recently changed the license on my vintage photograph collection to be Public Domain. Within the collection I have a really nice small album of early images of named locomotives and thought you may be able to make good use of them (some of the images are already linked from articles, but not actually uploaded to Wikimedia and displayed on the article pages).
I am working on a draft article in which the subject: Walter W. de Lacy was a prominent civil engineer and topographer of the mid 19th century. In his biography William F. Wheeler (1896).
"Walter Washington De Lacy A Brief Biography As Given By Him In Several Conversations and From Other Sources". Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana. Contributions Vol. 2. 2: 241–251. Retrieved 2014-08-08. and other sources, it says that de Lacy was employed for several months on the
Illinois Central Railroad being built in 1839. His biography says this was at (most probably)
Jonesboro, Illinois. He had just completed a year of instruction in mathematics, engineering and topography at West Point. However, the Illinois Central Railroad article indicates this railroad was not chartered until 1851. I want to link to the proper article in the de Lacy article, so a link to
Illinois Central Railroad would be incorrect if the charter date is actually 1851. Can anyone in this project provide some clarity here. Was the Illinois Central chartered in 1851, if so, was there a precursor? A similar question exists for the
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway which de Lacy also worked on in 1839. Thanks --
Mike Cline (
talk)
13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The legislature chartered the "Jonesboro and Mississippi Railroad" in 1837, but it doesn't appear to be otherwise heard of. Perhaps this was an abortive attempt at constructing it? It had charter rights to connect with "the Central Rail Road", and apparently the legislature
did charter an "Illinois Central Railroad" in 1835; it was never built, and the legislation was repealed and a new IC chartered in 1851.
Choess (
talk)
23:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Choess - Thanks. The Illinois legislative reference is sufficient to support a footnote explaining the disconnect. --
Mike Cline (
talk)
13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:RE-MV color
Hi WikiProject Trains. I've just come across
Template:RE-MV color which currently contains (and has contained since its creation) "My Name is NIZAM UDDIN BABU.I am Bagladeshi.I live in Comilla in Chittagong District.I am Student of comilla Polytechnic Institute in Computer department". Obviously that content is incorrect, and the template should contain a colour code. But what colour should it be? In
Berlin_Hauptbahnhof#Train_services, the "RE" services are coloured red, so should I make it red (i.e. #ff0000)? Or should it be something different? Thanks.
DH85868993 (
talk)
13:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
2. As it works now, it has no effect (style="background:nonsense text" does not produce any color). If you give it a color value, all uses must be checked because they may get that color - unintended.
I don't understand what you mean. Of course it's applicable - it would only be called when
{{S-line|system=RE-MV ...}}
is specifically added to an article. It's only used on eighty-odd pages, all of them German railway stations in the MV area. There may be cases where different lines in the region have different colors - some but not all other German regions do - but those are easily added lately. For now, this is better than either the previous spam, or a null template.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me repeat. 1. What doe RE-MV even mean? What does it stand for? 2. If you give it a color (from non=blank=transparent), how do you know that color was intended? 3. What did you learn from WLH? It was a spam page always, so turning it into a color was never checked by the invoking editor. -
DePiep (
talk)
19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@
DePiep: When I found {{RE-MV color}} and then {{RE-MV lines}}, I realised that {{RE-MV color}} was part of a
standard "XXX stations/lines/style/color" rail succession template set, which was confirmed by looking at the WLH. ("RE-MV" stands for the
Regional-Express train service in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). I could have just had the template deleted as nonsense, but I thought since it had already been created, I may as well just set it to the right colour, but I didn't know what the right colour was, which is why I started the discussion here. (With regard to asking the editor who created the template what colour it should be, the fact that they populated the template with text suggests they probably wouldn't know, and they haven't edited since June 20 anyway, so if I left a message on their talk page, they probably wouldn't see it). Regards.
DH85868993 (
talk)
00:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw on your project's "To do" page that you all intend to create a Briarcliff Manor train station article. I've been writing about the village and its related topics, and although I didn't think there was enough on the train station/library to warrant its own article, if you all have some knowledge or information that I don't, please do tell. Also, I'd be willing to add in what historical information I can find; I am also a member of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, so I can use their resources as well.--
ɱ(talk)23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? Because I thought the fact that it was converted into a library made it somewhat more interesting, and thus more worthy of an article than most of the other former stations on the
Old Put. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
11:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
West Coast Railways fleet details.
Good Morning,
I know NOTHING about Wikipedia, so I hope this is in the correct place.
In the listings of WCRC's diesel fleet, you list 47787 "Windsor Castle" as becoming operational in 2008.
I photographed the loco at Dingwall on 16th September 2007, working the Grampian Railtours trip to Dunrobin Castle. It was in ex-works condition and was un-named.
Hi WikiProject Trains. (Now indef blocked)
User:Appletreer created a whole bunch of train and tram templates which are all unused (see list below). Are these potentially useful, or should I nominate them all for deletion? Thanks.
DH85868993 (
talk)
10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You can delete them right away for
WP:G5 (speedy). If you want to spend any more time on it, you can check for actual use in mainspace (and leave those alive). -
DePiep (
talk)
11:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone tell me what category would the
Sabah State Railway (SSR) fall into? I am thinking that it can be classified as
commuter rail or
regional rail or both. Issue is i added SSR to the page:
List of suburban and commuter rail systems. But it was removed by
User:Tafeax citing that SSR is a regional rail and not a commuter rail. Some reasons why I think SSR should be classified as commuter rail: 1) it links a major city (
Kota Kinabalu) with outlying small towns. Although Kota Kinabalu is not such a big city, it is relatively much larger than all the other town in the system. 2) it is widely used by commuters - ppl working in Kota Kinablau but living in
Papar,
Beaufort, etc. 3) two stations are located within the city of Kota Kinabalu (Sembulan and Tanjung Aru) and a total of 3-4 stations are within
Greater Kota Kinabalu area (Sembulan, Tanjung Aru, Putatan and Kinarut (arguably part of Greater KK). The closest thing i have to 3rd party source saying that SSR is a commuter rail is in this news article which says:
"A huge explosion ripped through a commuter train with 200 passengers after it collided with a ... " - which was incidentally removed from the SSR article and replaced with an unsourced statement saying that SSR is a regional rail by the very same User:Tafeax. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. Any thoughts much appreciated. Thank you.
ќמшמφטтгמtorque02:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a regional railway line with mixed passenger and goods trains. Commuter rail is about a specific train service, this article is about a railway line.--
Aaron-Tripel (
talk)
08:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a separate rail service operated jointly with a tourism company known as the North Borneo Railway. Ya that is a heritage railway. But I am asking about the regular non-touristic railway service operated by Sabah State Railway.
ќמшמφטтгמtorque13:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the difference between a railway line and a rail service. But a
regional rail is also about a specific type of rail service, is it not? The regional rail article says: "Regional rail, also known as local trains and stopping trains are passenger rail services that operate between towns and cities." So I dont really understand your comment. There is no separate article yet on the rail service which operates on this railway line. There isnt even a name for the rail service which operates here. Afaik, there is only one regular rail service operating this line (beside the North Borneo Railway heritaage rail) So I just assume the service is also called Sabah State Railway. My query is whether the SSR rail service is a commuter or regional or what kind of rail service.
ќמшמφטтгמtorque13:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree its not the best source to support the statement, but at least its something, no? When the statement was edited to state that SSR is a regional rail instead, there was nothing at all to support that statement.
ќמшמφטтгמtorque13:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
O'Hare Loop (CTA station) or O'Hare International Airport Transit System?
That sure isn't part of the 'L', and I'm trying to decide if it's an outright hoax or if someone's confused the airport transit system for the CTA. I'm leaning towards the former, mostly because the airport transit system isn't a loop and O'Hare has no Terminal 4. I don't think it's even worth redirecting, since the title would be inaccurate in multiple ways.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation02:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The difficulties have been resolved. No further assistance is required. The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. Thanks.
DH85868993 (
talk)
02:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Wildcat Branch
Consensus at the TfD discussion is leaning towards this template being kept and included in the
Wildcat Branch article, but the editor who has tried to do that has been experiencing difficulties. Is any here able to lend assistance? Thanks.
DH85868993 (
talk)
01:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The difficulties have been resolved. No further assistance is required. The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. Thanks.
DH85868993 (
talk)
02:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
How did we end up with the "Stations along X Railroad lines" categories?
I was trying to sort out some of the categorization mess of the various Silver Spring, MD stations and discovered
Stations along Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines. This does not, to me, make a great deal of sense as a categorization structure. The various new MARC stations, for example, have no historical connection with the B&O even if some of them are roughly where trains may have stopped in the past. Potentially some of the DC Metro Green Line stations qualify even though they don't serve railroad passengers at all. There are also a few towns on lines where there is no passenger service now and where there used to be a station. I believe there are a couple of stations on other railroad's lines which also served B&O trains.
I think the category you want is
Category:Former Baltimore and Ohio Railroad stations, and I agree that it makes more sense than the "along X lines", which doesn't give a sense of original ownership. This would have the side benefit of matching the categorization scheme on commons. To be clear, I don't think we should have both sets of categories. Anything in "Former X stations" would be in "Stations along X lines" (with a few exceptions), and the new stations along historical routes really don't need to be so categorized.
Mackensen(talk)02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That's my point. I know they weren't LVRR stations. Hence having them in an LVRR category is potentially confusing. Also, if Roselle Park wasn't a CNJ station, what was it? My takeaway from reading the article was that it was CNJ. I think it really would be best if stations were categorized based on past owners, regardless of whose line they abut. A secondary concern of mine is that the existing scheme essentially "freezes" the US railroad network at a given point (1960–1970) for a categorization scheme.
Mackensen(talk)01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In no way should
Union (NJT station) have a category that says Lehigh Valley Railroad on it. Not just because it was actually built by NJT, not the LVRR, but because by the time it was built, the LVRR had been gone for decades and is irrelevant. Being along a former line of this-or-that defunct for decades railroad is not defining, and is overcategorization. Yes the former ownership of the line is defining for the line, but not for the station. That the station is in the category for stations along that line is sufficient.
And there's the inevitable question of which former owners to list, too. It may seem obvious to list, say, the CNJ for Raritan Valley Line stations, but what about something on the Bergen County Line? Do we list the Erie, or the Erie Lackawana? Or Conrail? Or do we go back all the way to when it was the independent Bergen County Railroad? As Mack says, we can't treat the era just before the state got involved as the default.
There's also a matter of triviality here. Many of these now defunct railroads stretched across many states, often as far west as Chicago, which itself has extensive commuter rail, some of it new services started up in the last decade or so. One plan is for a new service along CSX owned tracks. That those stations would be in the same category as ones in the Baltimore–Washington area because they're both along lines that happen to be owned by CSX is a trivial connection, when neither were actually built by the same company. I think we can drop these cats.
oknazevad (
talk)
12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Why can't we just have two train categories for each of these articles: the current company that the station is operated by, and the former, defunct company?
Epicgenius (
talk)
17:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a legitimate thing to include stations in categories for former operating companies. The problem with these cats is they include stations built long after the defunct company went ou of business, and so have no actual connection. The LVRR never had anything to do with
Union (NJT station), so putting it in that category would be simply incorrect. If a modern RVL station dates back to the CNJ days, then including it in the categories for CNJ stations and NJT stations is fine, but no station built after the CNJ went out of business should be in any category with "Central Railroad of New Jersey" in its name, as those stations have nothing to do with that defunct railroad.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I see now. A station on a line operated by a defunct company doesn't belong in the category of the former company's stations if the station was built after the company no longer ran the line.
Epicgenius (
talk)
21:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow! This seems like a gross case of overcategorizing, if you have to try and contrive all these suggested options. Delete the damn thing!
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not overcategorizing. If a station on a line is built after the company that formerly operated that line is dead, it shouldn't be listed in that company's category of railway stations.
Epicgenius (
talk)
21:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with renaming the categories to "Former X stations". Has a consensus been reached here? The next step is to take this to Cfd, where consensus there would need to be reached as well. There are
45 categories with the naming scheme "Stations along X line", most of which are also within
Category:Railway stations in the United States by company - so this should be the parent category brought to Cfd. --
Scott Alter (
talk)
00:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't checked them all, but the "City of X" articles in general seem to redirect to the city itself instead of the corresponding train article. In the most questionable case,
City of New Orleans redirects to
New Orleans even though there is
City of New Orleans (disambiguation) which kits the city, the train, the song, and a couple of other items. I was pondering asking at RFD to repoint som or all of these to the train articles, but I thought I'd better get some opinions here before going to that much trouble.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
They were all moved from the train articles, following a discussion a year or two back. It took me weeks to work out which links to
City of New Orleans (etc.) were intended to be the train service, or the settlement. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to edit articles for this, old template name will be supported (forever). It's just that you'll see the new name in documentation and in talkpages. See
this {TG] talk about the Move. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but please note:
Today {{Track gauge}}, {{RailGauge}} requires the unit to be added:
write {{Track gauge|30 in}}not{{Track gauge|30}} (30-what?) any more.
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my
talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.)
Harej (
talk)
22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Girgarre Railway Line
On the face of it, the subject of the proto-article is notable enough. Referencing will have to be massively improved though. ATM, it's all rederenced to Wikipedia articles, which is a no-no.
Mjroots (
talk)
18:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Which train model on Granada train station, Spain?
Hi Wikiproject Trains,
Train at Granada train station.
I asked a train enthusiast on Commons, if he knew what kind of passenger train was seen in this picture (I am a train noob, just happened to take the photo)? He did not know, but adviced me to ask here. I hope that is OK, otherwise I will just ask at the (science?) reference desk. Thanks in advance, --
Slaunger (
talk)
19:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@
Slaunger: The loco just right of centre may be a
RENFE Class 334. The fifteen coaches behind it I don't know about, but they look like they're not coupled to that loco. The six green wagons centre left are hoppers of some sort: possibly for carrying minerals like iron ore, or stone for track ballast.. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
As for the coaches, that looks to me like a
driving van trailer on the near end, with a rake of coaches hauled by a loco, presumably diesel, at the far end. I can't advise what type they are though.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear railway experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —
Anne Delong (
talk)
02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks,
Redrose64, for catching that. I have done the merge. I left out a little of the technical detail. Would you or someone else who understands railway terminology please check my work? —
Anne Delong (
talk)
12:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this was taken to ANI before coming here. Why would an administrator be more useful than the other editors on this project?
Mackensen(talk)20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears that ANI have rejected it. Not wishing to comment on all of Voidxor's edits (although the removal of Empty Coaching Stock was certainly improper), some of the items that had been added to that page were questionable; I removed one myself because it said "This term was coined in 2014 by a railfan named Gary Loveless." --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the other editor hasn't been able to find the refs that I found in a very quick search in Google Books (with directly relevant results dating back to 1904). I'm adding refs and re-adding definitions that were removed (with appropriate references), and I suggest that other interested editors also re-add items with references.
Slambo(Speak)18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Further update - I've been adding refs over the last week. The other editor has been working constructively in that time and a third editor has joined the collaboration to add references. With a little more work, we might even be able to get this up to Featured List status.
Slambo(Speak)15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, i was wondering if anyone can help me. I was modifying and trying to improve the axle counting article, but i seem to be having issues with my references for citations. They are giving me errors at the bottom of the page. Can anyone push me in the right way in how to fix them?
Essen-Dellwig Station and Essen-Dellwig Ost station
In the german Wikipedia these two stations are describeted in only one article (
de:Bahnhof Essen-Dellwig), because the two stations are an interchange point with the busses and trams at bus/tram stop "Dellwig Bf." and are an interchange point between the two S-Bahn-Trains. Also the two stations and their history and their future can be described better in one article than two, see
de:Bahnhof Essen-Dellwig. Maybe the two stations can be describted in only one article "Essen-Dellwig station" too.--
Bahnfreund94 (
talk)
17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Just so that everybody else can find them easily, the English Wikipedia articles under discussion here are
Essen-Dellwig station and
Essen-Dellwig Ost station. The stations are about 300m apart and are not physically connected in any way. These are easier to understand as individual articles with the relationship shown, and there is no need to stuff everything into an
omnibus edition. Why do they also use different kinds of infoboxes? Why did you not start this merge discussion at a station page, rather than at this remote location?
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The article has equivalents on fr, hu and pl Wikis. Any French, Hungarian or Polish speakers able to bash it into shape?
Mjroots (
talk)
22:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Correct the grade of the Budapest Castle Hill Funicular
There are multiple (unchecked) sources for the technical details. They all agree on one data: the length of the rail: c=95m.
They kind of agree on the height difference between the 2 "stations"*: 50-51m.
) note that besides the 1m difference it is also not clear whether it means that this is the height difference between the two end points of the rail(95m) or this is the height gain of the railcar (which has a length of 5-6m, so the path it rolls is less than 90m)
The different sources have different, contradicting figures for the grade. Some say it's 31.75deg, others that it's 48%.
I am going to show that 48% can't be right, and most probably 31.75deg is correct.
Let's look at a triangle: A is the lower station, B is the higher station, C is the imaginary right angle below B. The 3 sides of the triangle: CB=a (the height), AB=c (the length of the rails), AC=b.
If the 48% was true, then 48=100*0.48=100*(a/b)=100*tan(alpha). From this equation alpha=arctan(0.48)=25.64deg. Now let's look at the length of the railway and the height difference between the 2 stations:
c=95m, so a=95m*sin(alpha)=95m*0.4327=41.11m which is 10m less then what we expected to get.
However if we assume the 31.75deg is correct: a=95m*sin(31.75deg)=95m*0.5262=49.99m which looks correct.
I was told to ask this question here by
Edgepedia two years ago.
Anyway, why did railmotors? have very limited pulling power? I'm asking because, well, I'm writing a series about an ex-Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Hughes railmotor replica and she's been designed to be able to pull a maximum of 9 to 12 trucks or coaches, unlike her prototype. However, I'd like to know why they weren't so strong before I can think of a reason why.
Dinoboyaz (
talk)
01:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Mainly because the engine portion of a steam railmotor was small by comparison to a normal locomotive. There are several factors to consider:
boiler evaporation rate and working pressure
number of cylinders and their sizes
wheel diameter
number of driving wheels in contact with the rail and the load on those wheels
The LYR railmotors (nos. 3 etc.) had a boiler pressure of 180 lb/sq. in. just like the later average-size locos of the LYR (such as a
Class 27), but compared to Class 27, the boiler was considerably smaller (heating surface approx. 509 sq. ft. instead of 1210 sq. ft. - ratio 1:2.38), as were the cylinders (12x16" instead of 18x26" - volume ratio 1:3.66). The small size of the wheels (3'7 5/8" instead of 5'1" - ratio 1:1.4) would have increased the drawbar pull, at the sacrifice of speed. The railmotors had four driving wheels instead of six, but the adhesive weight was only 32 tons 14 cwt instead of 42 tons 3 cwt.
I seriously doubt that any railmotor could haul 12 (or even 9) coaches at anything more than walking speed - that's even if they could be moved. Those of the GWR could certainly handle one bogie coach and possibly a horse box or small parcels van as well, but the more vehicles that are added, the lower the speed capability. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
"why did railmotors have very limited pulling power? "
Because they didn't need any more than that. They pulled themselves and maybe a trailer coach. I think even a horse box would have been a rarity. So they just weren't designed to be able to pull any more than this. Power costs money and these were made small and cheap.
The figure you're looking for is
tractive effort - what it can pull on a spring balance attached to the first trailer. As noted above, this is the product of the boiler pressure and the total piston area, multiplied by the "gear ratio" which depends on stroke length and wheel diameter and reduced by any inefficiencies.
It's worth noting that this doesn't depend on the boiler size. That limits for how long this peak tractive effort can be achieved, or how fast it can be maintained, but not the starting pull. If you compare some large industrial locos (like the Hunslet Austerity) to large express passenger locos, they're surprisingly similar. This is because the industrials have small wheels (low gearing) and their small boilers would then limit the sustained effort.
Grip is also a problem - at least if the loco is quite powerful. Small wheels improve the gearing for tractive effort, but they also reduce grip and risk wheelslip. As railmotors were so low powered, several designs ignored this and although I think the L&YR were an 0-4-0 power unit, the Kerr-Stuarts were only an 0-2-2 or 2-2-0 with two equally sized but uncoupled wheels. The Sentinel shunters have internal gearing (see
steam motor) so have a reputation for moving extremely heavy loads slowly, but they're almost always limited by wheel slipping.
Many of the railmotors had limited footplate space and were difficult to fire. It's hard to simply shovel enough coal to keep them running at any sort of substantial output power. Not the L&YR Altcar Bob, but the vertical boilered types have very small grates that couldn't burn enough.
Twelve, or even nine, coaches is a long and heavy rake, especially loaded. Most stations of those days couldn't handle the length. Not only is these implausible to haul with a railmotor, it's hard to even see what the point would be.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a nice overview of the various types used in Great Britain in
Jenkinson, David (1988). British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century - Volume 1: The end of an era, 1901-22. London: Guild Publishing. pp. 257–268. CN 8130.
which covers 197 railmotors in total, more than half (99) belonged to the GWR, almost a quarter to the LYR (17), TVR (16) and LSWR (15) together, and the remaining 50 to 17 different undertakings. Unfortunately there are few dimensions. There is a photo of a GWR railmotor with a trailer, and a LNWR railmotor with trailer and horsebox. The two photos of LYR cars do not show trailers.
Mason, Eric (1975) [1954]. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in the Twentieth Century. Shepperton:
Ian Allan. pp. 134–141.
ISBN0-7110-0656-3.
has a fair amount of information, including the fact that a trailer was sometimes used, but there is no suggestion of more than one.
John Marshall, in volumes 2 & 3 of his three-volume "The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway" (
David & Charles, 1969-72), gives main dimensions of the LYR railmotors, building and withdrawal dates and the routes that they were used on, but doesn't say anything about their haulage abilities, not even whether they hauled a tail load or not. There's not much about railmotors in Marshall that isn't also in Mason. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Train wheel is poor duplication that should simply be deleted.
There's little need for an article as "railway wheel". The differences between loco driving wheels and carrying wheels for rolling stock are so large that it's a minimum of two strongly distinct articles, with little overlap. I'd like to see
wheel profile as a separate article, but that's not an easy article to write.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well both
Train wheel and
Railway wheel are very likely search terms, so they need to be kept as blue links, either one redirecting to the other or both redirecting to the same place. If we have two separate articles then possibly have one as either an overview or disambig.
Thryduulf (
talk)
03:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There's an issue with this article. Currently, the article is at "
Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2". But on the rest of the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's referred to as "MRT-2", not "LRT-2", because it's not "
light rail" but is operated by the "
Light Rail Transit Authority". Now, supposedly the official name is "MRT-2", but an overwhelming majority of
WP:RS calls it as "LRT-2". Please go to there to help in sorting out the differences. –HTD12:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
For all dicussions regarding this in order to honor the one talk page rule, may I suggest that all dicussions be made there. But to counter such here under the WP:TRAIN naming convention the common official name must prevail as would be seen in that article, and so MRT-2 is the rightful name as it is the common official name by the owner/operator and not LRT-2. But again any discussion with the matter must be directed to the page. PhilippineRevolution13:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone from this WikiProject help in sorting this issue out? It evolved on how "official common" is defined. –HTD14:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Operator colors in the Netherlands
Are there alternative colors for operators in the Netherlands other than
Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) available for use with {{s-rail}}? The NS colors are blue and yellow, which are used for intercity and stoptrein services respectively. I would like to use alternative colors for the train services operated by
Arriva in for instance the article
Groningen railway station. Their trains in the provinces of Friesland and Groningen are
red and white, but their trains in other regions are
blue and white. The Arriva company color resembles
teal (see also
their logo). – Editør (
talk)
16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to resolve the issue, but I'm not sure I've created or moved all relevant templates. – Editør (
talk)
21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Could members of this project take note that the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York is a state agency and not a city one, and also that the proper name for the agency is just plain "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" without any preceding "New York" -- although it's certainly OK to add "New York" if disambiguation is needed, as in "New York's
Metropolitan Transportation Authority" of "the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York".
It looks to me like every NYC Subway station article has at least one example of "New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority" in it. I've fixed a few, but it would be nice if members of this project could fix others when they're editing subway articles. Thanks.
BMK (
talk)
21:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Pertinent template and category discussions
There are a few TFD and CFD entries this week that should be of interest to project members: