Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2015

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.

Vermonter template help request

At template:Vermonter I could use a little help.

As you might know, a section of the Vermonter has been re-routed. The section between Springfield and Brattleboro is now more direct and goes west of the Connecticut River and stops in Northampton and Greenfield and no longer goes east of the river in that section nor stops at Amherst.

I'm having trouble making the entire former section shaded red. I'm particularly having trouble making the "Palmer-Springfield backup" shaded.

Ideally, the new route should be part of the straight vertical line while the old one should be a branch to the right as that would be more geographically accurate.

Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Great job!--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

They're sending the train back to Montreal? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is an official project of the State of Vermont. They're waiting for the preclearance facility to open in Montreal (2016 I think); then it's just a matter of upgrading the few miles from the border to Cantic Junction. The estimates I've heard are probably 2016 or 2017 for restored service. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In the "Map of the Vermonter route" image, while the link to the interactive map has been adjusted to the new route, the Wikipedia Commons map image still displays the old one. How does one reconcile the two? --Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably the old PNG render of the SVG is still cached in your browser. Try hitting F5 and that should reload a new render. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this showing the old or new route to you?--Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It shows the new route to me. I believe it's just a browser cacheing issue on your end. It happens a lot with commons - known bug. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request: Winschoten railway station

I've requested a peer review for the article Winschoten railway station at WikiProject Trains/Peer review. Your feedback would be very much appreciated. Thanks! – Editør (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

LGV Perpignan–Figueres

Page LGV Perpignan–Figueres needs to be updated, since the line has been extended to Barcelona and trains are now running directly from Paris to Barcelona. Unfortunately my French isn't good enough to find reliable sources myself, can someone else pick this up? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greenbelt Station#Continuation

I recently moved a bunch of pages within this WikiProject from the suffix "(WMATA station)" to use the suffix "Station" based on another discussion, in order to standardize station titling. Please comment there if my moves were incorrect. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Carlisle Kingmoor DLC

Hello train experts! Here's a draft that's currently up for review at AfC which may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This almost identical to Carlisle Kingmoor TMD, but I had to research what a DLC was... I'm guessing that it means "Downloadable Content" (for a railway simulator package), and so it's a draft of an article to describe an addon for a computer game, and so presumably should be rejected. If someone can confirm that I'm correct, I'll happily learn the AfC review process and reject the article (and equally happy if someone goes ahead and does it themselves). Robevans123 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it means "Diesel Locomotive Centre". Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Moot point now - "Submission declined on 5 January 2015 by Shii (talk)". Robevans123 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Howden railway station

Hi, does anyone know Howden railway station. I have been looking at File:Mind the step - geograph.org.uk - 471857.jpg, which shows the disused signal box, to try and add the correct listed building tag. Looking at the English Heritage list there are 2 entries which look almost identical apart from a slight change in the grid reference. Entry 1261514 and entry 1233349. Is there really 2 boxes at North Howden and if so which is the one shown in the image. Keith D (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There's only one signal box at the station (both signal box and station are Grade II listed). It's a relatively small station with two platforms, a level crossing, and some sidings, so very unlikely to need two boxes. If there were two boxes they would be at some distance from each other and have noticeably different grid refs, and the English Heritage listings would have more difference in the descriptions etc. English Heritage have done a lot of work on getting their data online, but there are often double entries (although EH are the main listing authority, a lot of work is done at local government level, and the various changes that have taken place sometimes lead to duplication...). I would use the 1233349 entry - it is the one used at Signal boxes that are listed buildings in England and also in the source listed at the end of that page (downloadable pdf). Robevans123 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had my suspicions that the entries may be for the same building. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Crossunder

A new project, Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss, lists words that occur in Wikipedia but are not mentioned in Wiktionary. The aims are to identify errors at Wikipedia or gaps in Wiktionary. Over 100 articles, mostly about US railway stations, use the word "crossunder" (Search). The word does not exist at Wiktionary. However, the word doesn't seem to be in any major dictionary.

Do reliable sources use the word "crossunder"? If so, then the word can be added to Wiktionary. But if it is only used at Wikipedia, then I think the articles should be fixed. From context, the word seems to refer to what I'd call a "pedestrian subway" - but I speak UK English, and the articles are mostly about US stations. If the standard US term is not "crossunder", what should be used instead?

Some of the articles use the word "crossover" in the same sentence (eg Island platform). This looks odd to me, since "crossover" has a different meaning in rail contexts. I'd call that a "pedestrian footbridge" - but again, I speak UK English. What is the standard US term? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I see it used here for a utility tunnel. And it occurs in comments here. The latter is a New York City source, and the term seems to be used overwhelmingly in articles on stations in the New York metropolitan area. The term I would normally expect in a US context is "(pedestrian) underpass". Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

True, you usually don't hear about it outside of NYC. It's mainly a dialectal word. Epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also heard and seen the word "subway" used for pedestrian tunnels, such as with Savannah (Amtrak station). When I first saw this, I genuinely believed that the Savannah area was getting an actual subway system similar to Newark City Subway. I'd say the use of the word "crossunder" is appropriate, because the tracks are underground and the pedestrian crossing is under the tracks... that, and the fact that they're really not bridges. -------User:DanTD (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, the term "subway" almost always means a pedestrian tunnel crossing under a road or railway. I know of only two cases where it means something else: best known is the Glasgow Subway, a railway that is entirely underground; and there is also Subway Tunnel, which is 117 yards long, situated between Royal Oak tube station and Westbourne Park tube station - it is how the Hammersmith & City line crosses below the Great Western Main Line about a mile west of London Paddington station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The UK has its dialects, Americans theirs. Outside of the UK, "subway" is also used to mean "rapid transit system", like Beijing Subway, Seoul Metropolitan Subway, or New York City Subway.

Anyway, going back to John of Reading's point, the correct standard term across most English dialects is "underpass" (though since in some cases it's already underground, I don't know if it will get the point across to the reader that it passes under the tracks and other structures, as "crossunder" does). The closest Wikipedia article (going to Redrose64's point about subways) is Subway (underpass). Epicgenius (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A railway fording a river

Heritage Railway magazine has posted a photo on its Facebook page showing a ford on a railway at Swandale, West Virginia, United States. I'd like to add the info to the ford (crossing) article, but does the source pass RS. If not, can any editor find a RS for this? Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a longer description of the practice here, but that's not really a RS either. However, the site claims the practice wasn't uncommon, so there's surely a write-up somewhere. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

- Here's one mention: "To cut costs on a spur which would be used only a few months at most, the steel gang would throw rails over stumps and around rocks, and would even ford creeks.". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

AIUI, this wasn't an unusual practice, but only on lines with seasonal traffic (which broadly meant logging) that were crossing rivers with seasonal flow. For much of the year, the stream was a minor trickle and could easily be crossed with the simplest of shallow rock embankments. Spring meltwater would then remove any sort of bridge, proportionate to the value of the traffic.

It wasn't always temporary (i.e. a one-off), it was often repeated year on year. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Golden State (train)

I tagged this article in September 2013 and I need assistance with the article in order to remove the messages. Few such elements that can be improved/removed include the schedules, equipment, and mentioning of other lines the train didn't directly ran, and/or sourcing. TheGGoose (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Distances in article leads

There has been a bit of discussion as to whether when stating the distance a station is from a terminus, if there is a need to explain the distance is by rail, i.e.:

A) Situated in the inner northern Adelaide suburb of Dry Creek, it is 10.6 kilometres from Adelaide station, or

B) Situated in the inner northern Adelaide suburb of Dry Creek, it is 10.6 kilometres by rail from Adelaide station

Two schools of thought: one that being an article about a railway station, it can be taken as read that distances quoted are by rail, while the other is that there may be some doubt, so it should be fleshed out.

Looking at similar articles in other areas, this information tends not to be included, probably because it is already included in the infobox, so that would be an alternative.

Anybody care to offer an opinion? BarossaV (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Australia, but in the UK, some of the public timetables (for example, those shown under "Complete timetable - valid until 16 May 2015" here) have station mileages. These are calculated by rail from the beginning of the line, and quoted to the nearest quarter-mile. Then there are books like

Yonge, John (November 2008) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. ISBN 978-0-9549866-4-3.

which also give station distances. Depending upon how the route was surveyed, they are either in miles and chains, or in kilometres (to the nearest 0.01 km). The zero point might be a terminus at one end of the line, or a junction, or (such as with all London Underground routes) the site of what at one time was the north-easternmost station on the system. But in all cases, the measurement is along the rail line. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In France the situation is very similar. Just everything (stations, bridges, tunnels, level crossing, trackside telephone etc.) will be indicated with a PK (point kilométrique), which is the distance by rail from the beginning of the line. Therefore, there is no ambiguity that a distance indicated from a terminus in an infobox or article is by rail. In an article about a railway station (or a tunnel/bridge), I would not feel the need to add by rail next to the distance from terminus, as that would be obvious. Place Clichy (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

List of MetroLink (St. Louis) stations FL removal candidate

I have nominated List of MetroLink (St. Louis) stations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Prose editing for some articles

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

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

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

River Line station articles

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

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

It's not necessarily the correct one to leave.

Preceding station	River Line (New Jersey Transit)	Following station
Preceding station	River LINE	Following station
Preceding station	River LINE (New Jersey Transit)	Following station
Preceding station	River Line (NJ Transit)	Following station
Preceding station	RiverLINE	Following station
Preceding station	SNJLRT	Following station
Preceding station	South Jersey Light Rail Transit	Following station
Preceding station	Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit	Following station
Preceding station	Southern New Jersey Rail Group	Following station

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

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

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

Notability and verifiability of railroad stations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure reversed

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

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

Collision at Rafz

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

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

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

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

CfD

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

Former services in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cents per mile

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

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

A missing accident in 2012?

Hi - looking through the list of train accidents I am specifically looking for freight train accidents in the "developed" world. I decided to use OECD as a guideline for selecting countries to include. Since not all of your listings include the word passenger and/or freight, I need to check some of the references to see if it is one or the other. (I'm not familiar with all the rail companies and their services around the world). Doing this I found that the link for note #110 was "dead", so I googled the accident. I found it to be featured here: ^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

References

^ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/22/train-derail-edmonton-alberta_n_1222522.html

Rail grinding

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

Help with succession templates?

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

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

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

Pennsylvania Railroad Chronology

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

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

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

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

Titles of articles about non-State Railways

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

Railway line naming convention

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

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

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

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

Mission City stations in BC

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox German railway vehicle

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox locomotive. Given that these templates are withing the scope of WikiProject Trains, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD All AirTrain JFK stations

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminal 1 (AirTrain JFK station). -Arb. (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ACC symbols on route diagrams

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#ACC symbols. Useddenim (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No, per WP:MULTI, please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Route diagrams and accessibility (wheelchair) symbol. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian railway stations

Shivanshsinghrajpoot has been creating articles on various Indian railway stations, such as Kerakat railway station, which has been nominated for deletion. It would appear from his talk page that English is not his first language. Can we try to work with him to improve the quality of their work. I will ping WP:India for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Preparing for TFD merge

Hello, I've started a discussion about the start of a TFD merge of two London railway station templates. The discussion is here, I'm just dropping a note here in case anyone is interested. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mysterious boxcar in Port Jefferson, New York

Does anybody recognize the railroad that owns the boxcar in this 1979 image of Port Jefferson (LIRR station)? The "TrainsAreFun" website doesn't mention it. They just give the number of the locomotive. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@DanTD: I think that's one of the IPD boxcars of the Middletown and New Jersey Railroad. The lettering seems wrong but the logos match (compare [3]). Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Airport railway station listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Airport railway station. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rail transport in Argentina

Hi there, I have been trying to improve articles related to transport in Argentina. For now, I have gotten the main article (Rail transport in Argentina) to a much better standard and would like to request revaluation of it from this wikiproject. Also, since I am pretty new to Wikipedia, I would also appreciate any advice and suggestions on how to improve these articles or make them into a more coherent series of articles :). SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Rail Accidents (1900 -29)

April 29, 1911 shows Photos of train wrecks said to have occurred at Martins Creek PA. I'm seeing Martins creek NJ in the article. -Wish I knew how to fix this myself. -Thanks,Newbie.Sgorry (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I'm looking at this now. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sgorry: the accident occurred in New Jersey. Interesting problem; "Martin's Creek, NJ" is now known as Brainards, New Jersey, and it's directly across the river from Martin's Creek, Pennsylvania. That accounts for the confusion. I'll make the appropriate updates. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Class 37

Class 37 used to be dab page for various locos referred to as Class 37s. An anonymous user has turned it into a redirect to the UK loco, creating Class 37 (disambiguation) as the dab on the grounds that "97% of users are looking for the BR Class 37 article." Not sure where those stats come from and not saying it's necessarily wrong, but pretty well all others of the genre are dab pages e.g. Class 9 etc. Do we go for consistency or for statistically analysing each one and risking confusion? --Bermicourt (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose there is some logic for the difference, in that a number of the pages listed at Class 9 have "Class 9" or similar as part of the page title, whereas for Class 37 (disambiguation) it is only British Rail Class 37 which includes the "Class 37" string as part of the title. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi back again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_gauge_conversions&diff=654567618&oldid=648928516

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) / TrackGauge (talk · contribs)

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've indeffed TrackGauge and added his name to the TC SPI. Do we need to nuke TC's contribs now, or should we wait? Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nuke Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

They've been nuked by the look of it. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Potomac Avenue station

See Talk:Potomac Avenue station. There is a RM being requested there to revert an undiscussed move from Potomac Avenue Station, against the lack of consensus at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015. Epic Genius (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Corris Railway number 7 (Locomotive)

Hello train enthusiasts. Here's an old draft about a train that will soon be deleted unless someone decides to work on it.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I nuked it. Modern locomotive that is not notble enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Longtime unreferenced articles

Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 are the articles that have gone the longest time unreferenced. Most of the list has been cleared and only a few hundred remain. One pool of remaining problems are train related articles:

Does anyone here have access to sources that may be able to reference some of these? Do all of these articles belong in the encyclopedia? - SimonP (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I knocked off Romney Sands. All except the junctions shouldn't be difficult to find sources and prove notability etc; I'm not familiar enough with the British system to make a judgement call on the junctions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn British Rail stock looks like a good candidate for merger into British Rail. With the exception of Worting Junction, the various junction articles are not WP:NOTABLE and could be merged or deleted. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd see that as failing WP:UNDUE. BR has to be the top level article across a huge scope. The Withdrawn stock article has the potential to be really good, although lengthy. It needs an editorial narrative - What's the point of this article? Is it merely yet another a crappy list of serial numbers in wiki form, or does it explain the post-WWII history of BR through the replacement of stock seen progressively as obsolete. That's an interesting slant on its history and technical development. Why did 4 wheel freight stock have to go - and why did it take 20 years longer than planned? What effect did that have on the lightweight diesels, the Gresley coaching stock and then the WR diesel hydraulics? When and why did non-corridor and slam-door coaching stock go? Why did some coaching stock get rebuilt with central door locks, rather than withdrawn? There's some good scope available to such an article, and like anything involving railways whole libraries full of source material. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a reference chapter to Withdrawn British Rail stock, even though I would have no idea where to get references for that article. Like Pi, I'm not really that familiar with the British System either, so the most I could probably do is leave it up to Portal:UK Railways. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Junctions where two (or more) different companies met - e.g. Port Carlisle Junction and Red Post Junction - should be shown in

Pre-Grouping Railway Junction Diagrams 1914. London: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-1256-3.

a near-complete scan of which may be found in the subcategories of c:Category:Railways Junctions Diagram 1914. These diagrams will show not just the companies, but the junction in relation to nearby stations or junctions, and the distances to each of these. If either of the companies was a jointly-owned railway, the junction should also be mentioned in

Casserley, H.C. (April 1968). Britain's Joint Lines. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0024-7.

@DanTD: Why Portal:UK Railways? Portals aren't discussion pages, and this one has 39 watchers; surely WT:UKRAIL (171 watchers) would be better. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I wasn't able to find WT:UKRAIL, so I thought the portal might be the next best thing. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Go to e.g. Hest Bank South Junction, click the tab for the Talk page. In the WikiProject Trains banner, find "Associated projects or task forces:" and click "[show]" against that. This reveals "This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways"; follow that link and click the Talk page tab. That is WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, there it is. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing Underground template

I am trying to edit a template which corresponds to this Wikiproject, however I have been unable to do so. The template can be found on the pages for all the Buenos Aires Underground stations such as here: Plaza de Mayo (Buenos Aires Underground) under "services" in the infobox.

The changes I want to make are: changing the line icons for all the lines with their newer versions from the commons, change the name from "Buenos Aires Metro" to "Buenos Aires Underground" to fit the naming of the main article and also add the main logo of the system to the template.

Could someone let me know where I can do this from? I am unable to find where these edits can be done. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The icons are set in Template:BA lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to remove several of Template:Infobox station's parameters

Please see this post. Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I copied the above from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations#Proposal to remove several of Template:Infobox station's parameters, which has just 56 watchers ({{Infobox station}} is only slightly better, with 57); this page has 335. The proposals affect stations in countries which formerly used a country-specific station infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Trains milestone coming up soon

When I started editing in September 2004, I never thought that I'd still be making edits on a daily basis ten years later. I created Portal:Trains on May 16, 2005, after comments were made on this talk page earlier that month. In December 2005, I looked into Featured Portal status; the criteria was soon agreed upon and on January 4, 2006, the Trains portal became the fourth Featured Portal on Wikipedia. I've maintained the featured status for the portal since then.

For May 2015, I'll be revisiting some of the first edits made to the portal and reusing some of the content from May 2005. I invite any interested editor to participate in nominating content to appear on the portal through any of these nomination pages:

When these nomination pages are unpopulated, as they have been for the vast majority of the time, I go through content within TWP's scope to find appropriate additions for the portal. For the images, I usually browse through Category:Rail transport by country. For the selected article, I use content from FA, GA and B class article categories. For the DYK section, I look at the unassessed articles, and for the news, I look at various news sources outside of Wikipedia.

I've had a lot of fun editing articles and content to show on the portal and learned a lot more about my favorite topic over the last ten years, and I look forward to continuing for the next ten years. Slambo (Speak) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line

The Hastings Line article is now a featured article candidate. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox rail line and rail service merge

A merge of the two aforementioned infoboxes has been proposed. Please offer your input at the TfD. Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dash spacing and caps

At Wikipedia:Help_desk#Fixing_clusters_of_problems, it was suggested that I should ask here about the cluster of dash spacing problems in categories such as Category:5 ft gauge railways in Latvia and Category:Railway lines in Latvia. I have taken out a lot of spaces around dashes, but haven't moved any articles yet (since I can't even try until I've been around for 3 days, they tell me, which will be in a few more hours). I also mentioned there that I don't see why "Railway" is capitalized on these. Can someone provide help or suggestions on whether this is worth working on? Timmeredgar (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

ps. I have no particular knowledge or interest about trains or Latvia. I just got on this by looking at random articles and finding where the observed pattern of consistency seemed to be violated. Timmeredgar (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Compare Category:Railway_lines_in_Switzerland, where most of the "... railway" article don't have the cap Railroad. Timmeredgar (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Timmeredgar: It largely depends upon whether the railway is (or once was) an actual company or not - this company being the one that either owned the line, operated the trains, or both. If it is, then the word "Railway" is normally part of the company's name, so it counts as a proper name, as in Stockton and Darlington Railway or Great Western Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. It does not appear to me that any of the Latvian ones are company names. Some of the capped Swiss ones are questionable, too. Like Upper Rhine Railway and Nyon–St-Cergue–Morez Railway -- how does one determine what's the best thing to do in such cases? I find that I am still not able to move articles, so I'm in no rush. Timmeredgar (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I can move articles today! So I took out the extra spaces from Saint Petersburg–Warsaw Railway. Should I move it again to Saint Petersburg–Warsaw railway? It does not look to be a company name. Timmeredgar (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) I took care of the rest of the dashes with spaces. Still hoping to get advice on the caps. Timmeredgar (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Timmeredgar has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Dicklyon. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Railway Stations Symbols

Copied from User talk:BL2002#Ferry links at stations. Although the conversation appears to mainly apply to ferry wharves in Sydney, the symbols that are the subject of the discussion have been also been added to railway stations in Sydney, so think this an appropriate forum to discuss.

Stations such as Rydalmere, Parramatta and Olympic Park should not contain links in Transport links to ferry wharfs which are not in the immediate proximity of the station and hence these have been deleted. Transport links should refer to services which are in the immediate proximity and I suspect the same should apply to Transport links at ferry wharfs. However I like the inclusion of the bus symbol in the Transport links which is something we should probably adopt across all stations.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of resistance to this, you may want to seek a consensus before you get too involved in this process. The symbols being added are for the modes and not the operators. Rb119 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I will leave getting any consensus to you at this point in time. As far as ferries go, at this stage it would be two (that is us) for and one against. Getting a logo for every operator would be a bit too much and I am quite happy with the generic bus logo. With trains a lot depends on Mo7838 who seems to rule the roost there and he is reviewing most of them at the moment and is likely to delete the logos without any comment - consensus would may be harder to get there. I 2ont be adding it to any stations at this point in time as I have a lot of other things on my plate. Fleet Lists (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

To provide some background, the symbols are Transport for New South Wales' generic symbols B for bus, F for ferry, L for light rail and T for train. While likely to be recognised by a Sydney reader, are likely to be of limited value to other readers.

If anything more readily identifiable symbols (

) would be of greater relevance, but even these symbols IMO don't add much to the article, and in cases like Macquarie Park railway station they are a bit awkwardly placed. There is a time and a place for symbols, eg the infobox at Rockhampton railway station, but don't think so in this case. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Mo7838 (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Have added the operator symbols as a bit of a test at User:Rb119/sandbox. Some are not the most up to date, but the principal is there. Don't think it is any better than what was already added, so agree with the suggestion above to omit entirely. Rb119 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not very enthusiastic about the operator logos as suggested in the Sandbox as the links when clicked on do not go to anything useful. Since last night more have been added with the B logo to a number of stations but all those recently added are on top of the Operator names and not in front of some names as done in earlier ones. This seems to be the better position option. I agree to apoint with Mo7838 about the meaning of the logos but the same could be said about the T1,etc logos but at least they link to something useful. The new B logos etc are good in my opinion if they linked to something useful which they currently do not. So unless a useful link is introduced I recommend they be deleted.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Historical innovative rolling stock

Category:Historical innovative rolling stock, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Rolling stock.. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: What's the point in upmerging a category to itself? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Oops, that was a typo which I just fixed. The category I'm concerned with is Category:Historical innovative rolling stock. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Template:Infobox T&W Metro station

Just a note to page watchers that Template:Infobox T&W Metro station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox station; the discussion is here. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

RR community assistance needed

Since 2015 Philadelphia train derailment is currently a very high-traffic article, there are some related articles that presumably receive a significant bump in readership. While many are fine, there are some that need attention. Notably, History of rail transport in Philadelphia (prominently linked in the 'See also' section) -- which has indecipherable referencing. At any rate, the article and those linked therein could use help from the WP railroad community. —Thanks, Eric, aka:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

I've proposed the creation of a Wikiproject Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority - the proposal is here, and I'm looking for people's thoughts about it! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Several proposed names/scopes

Note your input is also sought on the several proposed names and scopes, made as this proposal has been reviewed.

Your input is still sought on the proposed WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Thank You — Lentower (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

South Coast railway line (New South Wales) naming discussion

Hello there! There's been an issue recently over the naming of the South Coast / Illawarra railway line in New South Wales. I'm looking for appropriate people to give their opinion in a discussion of the issue. You can find the discussion here. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Potomac Avenue station listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Potomac Avenue station to be moved to Potomac Avenue Station. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

South Coast railway line, New South Wales listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for South Coast railway line, New South Wales to be moved to Illawarra railway line. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

University Link extension listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for University Link extension to be moved to University Link Extension. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hunter railway line listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hunter railway line to be moved to Hunter Line. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

La Gazelle train listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for La Gazelle train to be moved to La Gazelle. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RER listed at Requested moves

Copied from WT:FRANCE

A requested move discussion has been initiated for RER to be moved to Réseau Express Régional. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additional parameters to tunnel infobox

I've suggested three additional parameters to Template:Infobox tunnel. It's talkpage is quiet and no comments have been made since the proposal in September 2014, so I'm asking for some comments/feedback to be added to Template talk:Infobox tunnel#Number of bores (tunnels). AHeneen (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Rail safety

The 2015 Philadelphia train derailment recently highlighted the delays in implementing positive train control by the end of the year, as required by law in the U.S. I thought it would be interesting to read more about the topic in general, and I was very sad to find there is no article at rail safety. We have links for various types of train control and some articles linked from {{Rail accidents}} (shown below) but no real overview of how death and injury statistics have progressed over time, what safety technologies are now in place around the world, what safety initiatives have been undertaken to date, what proposals remain, and how rail compares to other modes. I'm sure there are many experts floating around this project; was anyone interested in drafting an article? -- Beland (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Transit Systems comparisons

I was perusing the light rail, commuter rail, and heave rail metro system lists, and found it interesting that one of the parameters in the table is ridership per mile; however, it seems to be missing a market penetration number like ridership per 100,000 residents. It seems that in comparing transit systems, one measure of effectiveness would be the density (i.e. market penetration) of how many people use the transit system regularly. --Trödel 17:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

An editor has challenged the neutrality of the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident article. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page. Please join the discussion so that consensus can be formed and outstanding issues dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've proposed merging Illini (train) and Saluki (train) into a single article. Comments welcomed at Talk:Illini (train)#Proposed_merge. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Diesel locomotive wheel arrangement classification categories?

We have:

Category:B-B locomotives

Category:Bo-Bo locomotives

Category:C-C locomotives

Category:Co-Co locomotives

(and others)

The twofold problem is that it's not clear if these are using UIC, AAR or whatever notation. "Bo-Bo" are clearly diesel-electrics with individual traction motors to each axle. Diesel-hydraulics in contrast belong under "B-B". However the current population is largely ignoring this and most of the B-B category members are US diesels.

How do we fix this?

Move the Bo-Bo locos to Bo-Bo, even if this notation isn't normally used in the US. This is simple, precise, accurate and follows practice in much of the world.
Rename the categories to some Wikineologism?
Merge them and lose the distinction?

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. diesels belong with the relevant AAR classification, as that's the way they are actually classified in use by U.S. (And Canadian) railroads. They are not in the wrong categories, as the category pages themselves indicate the cats are for AAR classifications. They are not redundant, as they are two separate (if similar) classification schemes, and articles should be placed in the categories that actually apply, no more. They shouldn't be moved out of actually used AAR cats, period, and no way should we make stuff up. Now, should the cats be renamed to make clear which are AAR and which are UIC cats, that I can agree with, but the AAR cats should not be dropped, nor should we categorize locos in UIC classifications based on our own conclusions. so the answer to your proposals is d) none of the above. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If the AAR and UIC cats are to be seen as separate, then the corollary of that is that we should rename them as Category:B-B locomotives (AAR) and stop Category:Bo-Bo locomotives as being a sub-category of it. That would be thoroughly unclear.

We should use UIC throughout. I have sympathy that this is unfamiliar to the US, but at the same time it's hardly unclear to them, as it's a simple enough system. As AAR is so restricted otherwise, we can't use that in an expressive manner. Mixing them is awful. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's split and rename them. I vociferously object to using UIC only, as a ton of writing about North American railroads uses the AAR standards, and those are the correct ones to use when that is what the references list. Otherwise we are drawing conclusions not in the references. It's not just a case of being "unfamiliar", it's about being accurate to the actual standards used. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having two category trees, one for the AAR standards, one for the UIC standards and having a given article be in both of the locomotive has indeed been classified in both. But just tossing out one set of standards that are in widespread daily use is silly. The real world has different classification schemes, no reason Wikipedia can't too. oknazevad (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since we make the distinction between US English and UK English (and support both), then we do the same with AAR and UIC classifications. Useddenim (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Steam trolley picture in North Carolina

Just less than two years ago, I was able to get a picture of this from inside the Fayetteville (Amtrak station), and found it interesting. Unfortunately, when I saw it I was looking for a National Register of Historic Places plaque at the station, because it happens to be listed. I don't really think it exists there. Plus I took two other pics inside that turned out like crap, but that's neither here nor there. What I also found was a picture of an old Fayetteville Street Railway steam-powered trolley. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell from the photo what that is. Tram engines are usually, but not always enclosed above the footplate, as are the US steam dummies. The difference is though that a tram engine (i.e. something that runs on the road) always has the motion beneath the footplate enclosed by side shields. Depending on local laws and needs, there may be cow catchers ahead, pedestrian guards beneath, lights and bells. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Transport Links

I have raised an issue on this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations#Transport Links on which I am seeking wider opinion.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of edits on California High-Speed Rail‎ by User:Robert92107

Can I make a request for a review of recent edits by User:Robert92107 on California High-Speed Rail. This user has made multiple edits over the last week with very few supporting inline references, and I feel that the article is being slowly twisted into a POV article. I just would like a second opinion whether the editing has been anything other than NPOV. This is a contentious project, and the article may need some degree of protection. - Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to correct anything that is not accurate or impartial. I do have an issue sometimes with putting in a conclusion that is based on stated facts. For example, I calculated travel times based on the stated speeds and distances of the project, and gave that, so I did not derive that number from any published source. Note that it differs from what the Authority says (although I also give their time estimate as well), and the claims of opponents. I have listed both pro and con arguments. I try to keep that balanced. There are more pro and con sites that I could list, but I kept it down to just one pro and one con. As I say, point to a problem area and I will fix it. I should also note that the article was sadly out of date and inaccurate, and I've been bringing it up to date for the last couple months, so there is a lot there that I've added. To my mind, the last week is no different from any other week. Robert92107 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: Unfortunately, your calculations count as original research and cannot be included in articles. Sounder Bruce 03:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit weird. If instead of me putting in the "answer" I were to put it in terms of "N miles / Y miles/hr = Z hrs" would that be acceptable? After all, all the numbers given are already specified as facts from sources already in the article, and all this would be doing is putting them together so the calculation (which none of the sources do) is more clearly understood. What may be obvious to me might not be obvious to someone else, and not giving that information actually ends up misrepresenting the issue of travel time in the article. I suppose I could say, "hey, I can't tell you the answer to this question, but if you do N/Y=Z you'll get the answer"? Robert92107 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert92107: - but by doing that, you risk running foul of WP:NOR. Better IMHO to just stick to facts, give people the information required to work out such things and let them do the maths. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, all Robert is doing is routine calculations, which do not count as original research. Presuming that it's simply figuring out travel time based on speed and distance, that is not original research. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation help needed

Help needed in addressing ambiguous links:

currently there are 8 pages linking to "Union Railroad" disambiguation page
currently there are 6 pages linking to "Rail" disambiguation

The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links group of editors has been making great progress towards eliminating ambiguous links; help them out if you can! --do ncr am 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Metro Center Station"

The usage and topic of Metro Center Station is under discussion, see talk:Metro Center station -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential source book

Came across a book about Indian railways I thought might be of interest.

Angus McDonald, "India's Disappearing Railways" Goodman Fiell, 2014. ISBN 978 1 78313 011 5

More of a coffee table book with large photos, but some text that may be useful. - 220 of ^Borg 02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a nice book, I've seen it too, but I haven't looked at it very closely yet. There's actually a huge amount of reasonably accessible source material on India's railways that could be used to enhance Wikipedia. A lot of it is covered in Hurd and Kerr's recent book India's Railway History: A Research Handbook (2012), which is included in the bibliography at the end of History of rail transport in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahnfrend (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC) ‎

Whoops, yeah, sorry, forgot to sign. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Future railway stations by year

There are too many categories: Unless a major reorganization is performed (combining completed, under-construction, and proposed stations) is done, I think (RS denotes "railway stations", so that the table will fit on most computers; letter codes in the boxes:

E = category exists
a = category absurd
u = category not quite absurd, but unlikely

	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
RS opened in	E	Ea	a	a	Ea	a	a	Ea	a	a
RS scheduled to open in	E	E	E	E	Eu	Eu	u	u	u	u
Proposed RS scheduled to open in	Ea	Ea	Eu	E	E	E				E

I'm not quite sure whether to propose

- 2015: Splitting "proposed" into "opened" and "scheduled"
- 2016: Move "proposed" and "opened" into "scheduled"
- 2019, 2022: Move "opened" into "proposed"

or

- 2015: Splitting "proposed" into "opened" and "scheduled"
- 2016–2024:Move all into "scheduled", whether or not contruction has started.

It's up to the project, but "opened" in a future year is speculative, at best. Whatever you (the project) decides, I'll help generate the Cfm/r templates, if you (collectively) don't have an AWB guru. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we can do away with all those cats, and have just two in their place. Once for stations with a scheduled opening date, and one for proposed stations. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we lose "proposed stations" on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL? Lamberhurst (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is for preventing unverifiable speculation. Proposed stations are often verifiable, by having been reported in reputable railway press: indeed, WP:CRYSTAL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo of RS-3 at top right of page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_modelling

The photo shown at the top right of this page is mine. I used to have photo credit shown but it has been removed.

While I don't mind the photo being used, I do insist on a credit line as I do own the copyright on this photo.

The same applies to the photo on this page: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_modelling#/media/File:Model_rs3_bridge.jpg

Regards.

Roger Traviss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.61.234 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2015

You are credited, on the file description page. If you return to the second link that you gave above, you will see at the bottom left some text "View author information" and at bottom right a button "More details" - both of those are links, click either of them and you should see all of the information that was added by the uploader, Fourdee (talk · contribs) (as amended by Jamesofur (talk · contribs) upon receipt of this OTRS ticket). This attribution is in line with WP:CREDITS and other policies. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass AfD nomination

A mass nomination of between 40 and 50 railway station articles has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviation Academy Railway Halt. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Recently there have been some differing opinions on the validity of retaining hitherto unpopulated fields in infoboxes. One example is Cherrybrook railway station, an Australian station scheduled to open in 2019. There are two theories;

1) all fields should be retained [4] to allow those unpopulated to be filled as information becomes available

2) only populated fields should be included [5] and can be added as required.

My opinion is that 2) is more cumbersome and requires a higher level of Wikipedia proficiency, thus less likely to occur making 1) more preferable. Not just specific to under construction stations, but infoboxes in general. Anyone care to offer an opinion? Turingway (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I greatly prefer the former, because the latter requires knowing that the fields exist. Casual editors don't know that they exist and don't add them. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on information being "available" is something of a distraction. Various fields cannot be filled in because they are irrelevant (most of the dates in the case at hand, and all the passenger statistics fields), and some will stay that way (I gather that the system in question doesn't have "zones" and that the country/whatever in question doesn't have "boroughs"). OTOH some fields seems to have been omitted, even from the supposedly complete list, because whoever put the thing together didn't care about them (the architecture fields in this case). There are a bunch of fields which people who don't know how the infobox works aren't going to be able to fill in (the whole "services" section). I'm not convinced that simply having the fields there, waiting to be filled in, is going to enable passing editors to fill them in when the time comes. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

All fields should be included, unless it is obvious that a field is not needed (e.g. one of two fields for a spelling variation due to different varieties of English). It does no harm having unused fields in an infobox. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Option 1. Useddenim (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Using "(new)" as a disambiguator

See talk:Visakhapatnam – New Delhi AP Express where a proposed new name for the train article uses the format "abc...xyz (new)" for the new name -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Platform Boxes

In Sydney Australia we currently have a recently joined member who is deleting platform boxes from stations because they do not have specific references as to which platform certain routes depart from or there is only one platform. I believe this is taking the reference argument to the extreme. I and another member have been reverting his posts but he continues to do so. See User_talk:Mqst_north#A bit of free advice Examples are Berry railway station and Albion Park railway station. Any discussion please.Fleet Lists (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Some progress has been made with the issues now more clearly defined with some comments in Talk:Bomaderry_railway_station We would appreciate some further comments on the last two issues listed there so that these issues can be resolved.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Metro (2008 proposal)

Sydneysiders among you will remember the previous Sydney Metro proposal of 2008-10, which at the time spawned five separate Wikipedia articles referring to the various aspects of the project. (All were cancelled within two years; a separate program, also called Sydney Metro, is now under construction.) There's an ongoing discussion regarding whether these should be merged into a single article called Sydney Metro (2008 proposal) at Talk:Sydney Metro (2008 proposal). Any thoughts? Mqst north (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian locomotives

I am creating articles for some early Soviet diesel locomotives, e.g. ВМ and I would like to discuss names for the articles. ВМ looks like BM but it is Cyrillic script so it is likely to cause confusion. Could we please develop a naming convention for Soviet and Russian locomotives. I am currently working on shch-el-1 or Щэл1 at User:Biscuittin/sandbox2. I assume that article titles in English Wikipedia should use English characters. Biscuittin (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an existing naming convention for subjects whose names are normally written in Cyrillic script or Russian language. However, we do have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved ВМ to Soviet locomotive class VM. This title is loosely based on the British Rail ones, e.g. British Rail Class D16/1. Biscuittin (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it again to Russian locomotive class VM to match the Russian steam loco titles, e.g. Russian locomotive class IS. Biscuittin (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess the thing is that if Western sources in their own literature use "BM", then BM it should remain. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

These two letters look like B and M, but in Cyrillc script they are В and М. The letter М is sounded just like our own letter M, but the В is sounded like our V. Consider the word "Восток" (which means "East"), it is normally Latinised to "Vostok". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A comment on the use of "Soviet" and "Russian". If the locomotives were introduced before 1992, then the article should be located under a "Soviet" title. For 1992 introductions and later, then the "Russian" title is correct. Those classes in service across 1991-92 should probably be housed at whichever title covers their longest period of service, with a redirect from the other title. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alleged discovery of train carrying Nazi gold

This story might be worth keeping an eye on. Could be an article if it is confirmed to ave been found. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the notorious ways the Nazis used to get a lot of their gold, if this is found to be legit, perhaps there would be some question of what would be done with the train once the potential reparations are made. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

REO Motor Car Company manufactured train cars?

While trying to resolve ambiguous links in WikiProject Canada articles, I came across Brockville, Westport and North-Western Railway with a link to "Reo". In this edit, I wikilinked to REO Motor Car Company (a.k.a. REO or Reo), attributing manufacture of "gas-powered rail cars" for the BWNWR to that company. However, the REO / Reo article covers only manufacture of autos and trucks and buses. Does anyone know of REO railroad cars being manufactured or used anywhere else? Can any references be found to document that in the REO article? I still assume my edit was accurate, but would be happy to be corrected if it turns out there is some other Reo company that made train cars. TIA, --do ncr am 17:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This page reproduces an extract from a primary source describing the railbus: it was built by Ledoux, Jennings Ltd., of Montreal (Reo agents) and powered by a Reo engine. Your edit was correct. Thanks! Choess (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Major copyright problem

Good evening. I've just discovered that Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) (currently blocked, not sure of details) copy/pasted large portions of text wholesale from George Drury's Historical Guide of North American Railroads. He used the 1994 edition; I have the 1985 edition in front of me. So far, starting from A, every article is affected except Adirondack Railway (1976–1981) (which I wrote earlier this evening; maybe it's not in the 1994 edition). I've started keeping a list at User:Mackensen/Drury copyvios and I've filed a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, but cleaning this up is going to be obnoxious. Hopefully in most cases it'll be possible to just revert to the last good version, accepting that some edits may have to be reinstated. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Details at User talk:Oanabay04#Block extended and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oanabay04. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the last of the copy-paste edits I could identify; one article is pending deletion and the B&O has been listed for follow-up. In total 54 articles were affected. I suspect there are others; in my opinion not a single edit by this editor can be trusted without verification. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Thalys attack

I added a navbox to the 2015 Thalys attack article. This was later removed. I initiated the D part of WP:BRD at talk:2015 Thalys attack#Navbox but so far there has been no response. I'd like some discussion to take place so that there is consensus formed, not just a difference of opinion between two editors. If the navbox is kept off the article, so be it. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Crimea

At the risk of poking the bear, I noticed that some Crimea transport articles and templates have been moved from Category:Ukraine transport templates to Category:Russia transport templates. Do you know if any consensus has been reached about this? Useddenim (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

Feel free to comment and/or leave feedback at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Metra stations/archive1. Thanks, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 13:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed re. preceding & following, stations / stops

Hello, I am seeking confirmation of the correct way to 'render' preceding and following stations &/or stops in the s-boxes at the bottom of the pages. For example George Street tram stop... has Church Street tram stop under preceding stop whereas in fact, it is the stop that follows George St. (the trams only run one way at that point). It can be read as correct in that George St. precedes Church St. and therefore could be said to be be preceding Church St. but I would have thought that in the case of George St., the preceding stop is the one the tram leaves before reaching George St. (In this case East Croydon Station) but am wondering what the convention is for this project. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mostly the routeboxes are west to east and north to south, so for the Croydon system you'd put the stop that is towards Wimbledon on the left, and that towards Beckenham Junction / New Addington / Elmers End on the right. There is that loop and triangle though. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifys it. I can see the reasoning... but in this instance it appears to be wrong because of the one way operation. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, UK routeboxes tend to follow the "down" line, so the London terminus will be the one with no "preceding" station. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes that would be the north/south, west/east scenario clarified by Redrose64. It is slightly confusing in this instance as the line here (tramlink) runs east/west only at this point, with the return line following a different route. Eagleash (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals

WP:JCW has recently updated, and the coverage of trains and railroad publications on Wikipedia could be improved. Many of the top cited 'journals' (which include magazines and websites, etc...) will be of interest to people in this project, so I figured I would compile a list.

The above classification maybe a bit off, because I'm just basing myself off the languages and titles of those publications, so don't chew my head off if Die Bundesbahn covers more than the trains of Germany!

Any help you can give writing these articles is greatly appreciated. You can consult our writing guide at WP:JWG (journals) and WP:MWG (magazines) for some guidance on writing articles on journals and magazines. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I add Heritage Railway (magazine) to the list? Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The compilation missed "Heritage Railway" because currently that redirects to Heritage railway (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/H6). You can create Heritage Railway (magazine) and put a {{redirect}} notice on Heritage railway.

You can add whatever you want to the list, those above are simply those picked up in Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Missing1 through Missing5 (which are the most used magazines/journals/websites without articles). There are many other publications I'm sure. Just search 'Rail' and 'Train' or similar and you'll find plenty more. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Are Great Eastern Journal and Great Eastern Railway Society Journal the same? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just added interlanguage links to two of these - but as I rely entirely on machine translation for Japanese articles, I'm not 100% sure that the Japanese link is correct. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: They might be, I don't know. Could be that one's an informal name and the other is the actual name, or it could be that one's a former name and the other the current name. I'm just compiling lists of train-related journals and magazines. Best way to find out is to go to Google or library websites and find out. And then you can write the articles with the help of WP:JWG or WP:MWG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line FAC2

I've re-nominated the Hastings Line article for FAC. It failed last time due to a lack of reviews, so I'd appreciate some support this time round please. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We're almost there. One of the coordinators has asked that the licencing for images and provenance of the sources are vetted. Would someone please do this? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

At long last, the article has been promoted

. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Lua-based route diagram template

(Hopefully this is the right place to announce it) I just finished localizing the documentation of Lua module:routemap so map created by it will load faster than map composed of the older BS series templates. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Why has the syntax been completely changed? Is there any possibility it will be possible to use the existing RDT syntax? This makes it both time-consuming to switch existing RDT-based route diagrams over, and clunky for experienced RDT editors to switch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Per WP:MULTI, this is best discussed at WT:RDT#Lua-based RDT. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Further to the above discussion, and mass changing of RDTs without consensus, I have opened a RFC at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RFC Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Škoda 15 T

This article seems to have a great deal of white space between the first para. in the body of the article and the first sub-heading caused apparently by a "gallery" being inserted which appears after the infoboxes (3). It looks poor and one of the images is a duplication of an infobox image. Eagleash (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Useddenim. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There was another very wide image beneath the infoboxes between the doors sub-hdg and production section, which produced another large area of white space. Moved it beneath/into gallery and added a caption after looking at the 'File'. Eagleash (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Bus route numbers in station articles

I wonder if WP:TRAINS provides any guidance on the inclusion of bus routes in station articles, like this one. I've removed them from several Shiraz Metro station articles on the reasoning that, "such information is highly transient and we also risk that Wikipedia will be used as a travel guide" - but perhaps these lists are accepted, or even acceptable? Alakzi (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They've certainly been accepted, and nothing in the (admittedly outdated) Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style says otherwise. Although in the past I used to add such information, I agree that it's not notable and that providing a link to the transit provider's home page (which we do anyway) is more appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I would much rather have them in prose with the destinations/where the buses run instead of numbers (which might not be all that permanent, depending on agency). Sounder Bruce 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for their inclusion - Bristol_Parkway_railway_station#Services is an example. I would say that where a bus calls at a station, note which buses call there. If buses merely stop nearby, just note that "there is a bus stop X yds away on [road]." -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

CRL Move

FWIW I have requested at move at Talk:Croxley Rail Link. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 13:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Staff, shunting, signals.

I am in Australia. I recollect, as a child in the 1950's that the railways had two types of signals. One was the semaphore type on a post and the other was a red/green ground level signal which indicated the setting of the "points" which was the expression for where one line joined or crossed another. When "shunting" the points signals were very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.122.77.188 (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge Edinburgh Crossrail

For what its worth, I have proposed a merger of Edinburgh Crossrail with the Borders Railway. Please see Talk:Borders Railway#Merge?. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Need some help with a couple of templates

Would someone with some experience in route map templates help me out? I've added templates to all the Buenos Aires commuter rail lines, but two of them (on the Belgrano Sur Line and San Martin Line pages) push down all the images when expanded. I've read about how to prevent this before, but can't remember where and can't find it - and also comparing with the templates on the other pages, I can't spot any differences. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I just tested it, and found that when you press show it pushes the images down (as it should), but when you press hide the images don't come back up. Pressing show on the infobox routemap restored them to their correct place, but this is a new one to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I rather suspect that this is something that is browser-dependent, and hence outside our control. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, though I expected that the answers would say that I messed something up instead... Will this just fix itself then eventually or should I notify someone anyway? Using Firefox 41.0.1 if that helps anyone. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

AFD

List of ACoRP members has been proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ACoRP members. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Station article whitespace

For some reason today, there's a glitch that is creating huge white spaces in every single station article. I thought it was just a defect that occurred when I created Shawmont (SEPTA station) until I realized it was system-wide. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE - I just discovered NRHP articles are having the same problem. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a badly-thought-out CSS change that affects any page with both floating objects and level 2 headings. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#TOC problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Immigration & constructing

This new book discusses immigrants who worked on transportation projects such as joining the Central Pacific Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad: The Filth of Progress: Immigrants, Americans, and the Building of Canals and Railroads in the West by Ryan Dearinger, 2015, University of California Press. Maybe useful for expanding history and construction sections of those and other transportation articles.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anything about Italian Immigrants building the Long Island Rail Road? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Bus route numbers in station articles, revisited

There was a discussion recently about the use of bus routes in train station articles and if and when to use them, and I missed my chance to add my two cents on the issue. Here's how I deal with buses; If there's a genuine bus terminal attached to the station, such as Victor A. Moore Bus Terminal which is part of Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street (New York City Subway), or the Jamaica Center Bus Terminal which is part of Jamaica Center – Parsons/Archer (Archer Avenue Lines), or Fordham Plaza Bus Terminal, which is part of Fordham (Metro-North station), or St. George Terminal, Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center, etcetera, then those clearly deserve big route numbers, and descriptions, and what not. Otherwise, I just throw them in the infoboxes. ----------User:DanTD (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If a bus stops actually at a railway station then I put in a list of route numbers and destinations. If the bus stop isn't adjacent to the station, I'll mention "the nearest bus stops are..." but won't put any service detail. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Having bus route numbers in station articles violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Listing available connections as "the station has bus services to villages X, Y and Z". And if bus numbers are added, why not list all the taxi companies that operate from the station? Or every catering outlet in the station? Why stop at bus numbers? Details of travel arrangements are exactly what Wikivoyage is for. AadaamS (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Taxi companies and catering outlets? We had a discussion on taxis at LIRR stations, and I reluctantly agreed to let them go. As for "catering outlets," I was going to post a message at how ridiculous your tirade sounds, but then I remembered Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railroad Passenger Station, which currently operates as a "catering outlet." If that bothers you, too bad. It is what it is. The same goes for the travel plazas intermodal centers at train stations like this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my post was intended to be ridiculous because adding bus numbers, lists of taxi operators, train time schedules or train ticket prices to train station articles invites ridicule. The absence of WP:RS for a station should not serve as an excuse to add superfluous detail simply because that's the only information available. Bus numbers, if such ludicrous minutiae turns out to be completely unavoidable due to Wikiproject Trains consensus, better belongs in the article of the bus franchise, not the article of the station, again see WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is what it is comes down to a non-argument in the Wikipedia context, this is a continuously updated encyclopedia. I hope my counter-arguments do not upset you too much but if they do, I trust you get over it soon. AadaamS (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got to go with Mattbuck and Oknazevad on this. I understand not wanting to waste time with taxi operators, schedules and ticket prices, and phone numbers, but actual connecting transit services of any kind, including but not limited to buses and their routes, I wouldn't put in such a frivolous category. And I don't see anyone else taking things that far either. Yes, taxis do stop at New Rochelle Transit Center, Petrillo Plaza, etcetera, but nobody is adding specific companies to them. Yes, bus terminals like the Victor A. Moore Bus Terminal are part of the Roosevelt Avenue / 74th Street (New York City Subway) station complex, but nobody here is adding the times they run, or God forbid, makes and models. And because not all stations include travel hubs like these, not all stations are getting these major lists. In fact, when I do create the bus list for White Plains TransCenter, it's going as a separate article. White Plains (Metro-North station) may be a major intermodal hub, but the number of routes and companies at the TransCenter will make it huge. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Quoting NOTTRAVEL:

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.

So what we're told is that in non-transport articles, we shouldn't go into information about "best" things, about prices at cafés, etc. That I agree with. However, if you're writing an article about a transport hub, it makes no sense to not include where you can get to from said hub. I'm not suggesting we include details of those places, and certainly not second degree connections, but information on the routes serving a transport hub is of significant relevance to that hub. As I said earlier, if the bus stop isn't right at the station, just mention "there are bus stops X yds away", but if buses stop at the station, they're part of that transport hub. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi mattbuck, I can see that my late-night editing ommitted that I support adding major destinations of the bus services. I do not support adding bus line numbers, pricing or time schedules. I have no issue with saying there are bus services, but if there's a bus service imo it's self-evident there's a bus stop in the vicinity because that's how every bus service in the modern world operates. If the adjacent bus station is significant in its usage numbers, architecture and history of course, of course the bus station should of course have a section. And no, information on bus routes are no more relevant than adding service numbers on the train services or pricing for train services, because train services have numbers too. Also I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to instruct readers on how to use public transport WP:NOTHOWTO and that's the impression I get when schedules and pricing are added for either bus or train services. Thanks for a good discussion so far. AadaamS (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding bus route numbers to an intermodal travel hub is no different the names of the train lines that stop there. Train numbers are not analogous; line names are. Especially if the line name is just a number of letter, as many subways often are. Listing the bus route numbers is the same as listing subway line numbers. I can't imagine you'd agree to removing what subway lines stop at an intermodal hub just because the subway service is numbered. So why do you insist on that for bus routes? That's not a schedule. Schedules would include the actual departure times and such. Just listing route numbers is not the same thing. So it does not violate WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOTTRAVEL. oknazevad (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, bus numbers change quite regularly and makes articles a headache to maintain or numbers are kept but now that number goes elsewhere. If subway numbers/named changed on a regular basis, I would be opposed to adding them too. In the cases of buses, what remains a constant, in the context of the station, are the major destinations. Subway line names are not an analogy for bus numbers because the former are tied to the infrastructure itself because lines have single-use infrastructure but this discussion isn't even about subways. I still think bus line numbers should be listed in the article of the bus franchise, because that leaves a single article to update when bus line numbers change, instead of many places. How is listing bus numbers in each and every station article an easier encyclopedia to maintain? AadaamS (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bus numbers do not change that regularly, and by the same argument we shouldn't put places trains go to on station articles either, because they might change. If you're really worried about change, stick a {{as of}} in there. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bus lines do change regularly. Where I live they change twice a year. Services come, services go and the numbers change with them, or the specifics of the service. Destinations of the bus services, not so much. The trains will always go to the city where the next station is located because railway infrastructure takes quite a long time to build or change. And yes, I think the station articles primarily should deal with the station itself. If you wish to write about the bus network, why not improve the bus franchise article? Why must it be in each and every station article within the area of that bus operator? And what would the point be to have the exact same information in both the bus franchise article and each and every station article? I would rather have smaller station articles that are accurate over long periods of time than larger articles filled with outdated information. Still I think putting bus service numbers better belongs in the bus franchise article where it's also far easier to get an overview of the bus network rather than reading about the bus network piecemeal in each and every station article. I think bus line numbers are better served by being kept in the bus articles rather than the station articles, but I can see consensus is against me. AadaamS (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that information can only be on one article, which is clearly incorrect. So bus routes change, but that'll be on the margins - low revenue ones go, new ones pop up. The good-performing ones will stay year in, year out, and few stations will be on more than one or two bus routes anyway. Yes, the bus company article should be more in-depth about bus routes and numbers, that's to be expected. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that duplication makes maintaining articles harder. Also, the whole reason that buses tend to have numbers rather than names is that they tend to change frequently. A number is not descriptive to anyone but people who live in the area and use those lines, the number is just a couple of digits and Wikipedia writes for a global audience. The destination it has been running to, hopefully for years, gives an idea to the reader that the bus route actually connects the station to something - perhaps something that has an article of its own. Also this WPT decision to add bus route numbers opens up every train station article to have every route number listed. A final question: do you propose to add former bus numbers that operated from the station and if so, why? And if not, why not? At this stage I have nothing further to say on this topic, I bow to consensus. Thanks for a good discussion, mattbuck. AadaamS (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying the numbers change while the routes (or at least the destinations) stay the same, then while numbers would be nice I wouldn't say they're entirely necessary. I think that current bus routes are part of a station article, but given the article is a railway station, more information should be given about train services. If there's some particularly notable bus which used to stop there (no, I have no idea what that entails either) then include it, but generally it's not too relevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So when the Q (New York City Subway service) moves from the BMT Astoria Line to the IND Second Avenue Line you would oppose telling anybody about that? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong place for this discussion. Since you are talking about "Stations" and not "Trains", then Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations is the appropriate place. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations has 17 watchers. This page - which is an umbrella - has 336, almost twenty times as many. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- and I suspect those users are also watchers here. It is noted above that "stations" can also be bus stations, which is a discussion not related to trains. A link from here to the proper place for stations would have been the best solution. But the trivial piece of chatter is here now. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox GP Station usage figures

Hi, I've started a discussion atTemplate talk:Infobox GB station#Usage section about the overwhelming size of the usage figures section of the above infobox. I'm not massively involved in rail articles so I'm not sure if there are other templates that may be in a similar situation. Input and potential solutions would be appreciated over there? Jeni ^(talk) 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Rail line formatting fix

More consensus is needed for a minor fix to get the text to center properly on Template:Rail line under certain circumstances. Please comment at Template talk:Rail line#Using Template:Rail line in infoboxes. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia requested photographs/images of stations

Apparently, somebody decided that the categories "Wikipedia requested photographs of Foo stations" should all be renamed "Wikipedia requested images of Foo stations." If you're going to rename these things, shouldn't you take all the templates and such with them too? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@DanTD: That's swpb (talk · contribs), who is on a mission. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

All the templates I know of have been updated, or are pending requested updates in the case of protected templates like this one. If you know of any templates (or other things) that point to the old categories, go ahead and update them. That said, the old categories still exist, mostly as redirects, so any old links will not be broken. By the way, it would be more accurate to say I was on a mission; the moving of categories and updating of request-categorizing templates is complete as far as I can tell, with the exception of ~20 edit-protected WikiProject templates with pending requests. Clearly, I made some folks grumpy in the process, but I can't do much about that now; I promise I feel an appropriate level of bad about it. —swpb^T 16:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't really make me "grumpy." I just wanted to figure out why I was getting all these redlinks when I checked on stations with image request categories turned into redlinks. The name changes themselves, I could've gone either way about. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move of Pomona Metrolink station

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015 that is relevant to this WikiProject. Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084

There is a discussion underway regarding deletion of the newly created BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084 article. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Waterhouses (County Durham) railway station

Waterhouses (County Durham) railway station is proposed for merging to Waterhouses, County Durham. Please discuss at Talk:Waterhouses, County Durham#Merger Discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Route directions

Birmingham–Peterborough line

West Coast Main Line

(Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line)

Cross Country Route

and Cross-City Line

Birmingham New Street

Curzon Street

Cross-City Line

Camp Hill line

West Coast Main Line

(Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line)

Birmingham Freightliner Terminal

(site of Lawley Street station)

Saltley

Aston–Stechford line

Bromford Bridge

Castle Bromwich

Sutton Park line

Water Orton

Cross Country Route

Coleshill Parkway

Hams Hall Freight Terminal

Stonebridge Railway

Whitacre Junction

Freight line to Kingsbury Junction

Shustoke

Daw Mill Colliery

Arley and Fillongley

Arley Colliery Sidings

workmen's platform

Stockingford Colliery branch line

Stockingford

Nuneaton Abbey Street

Ashby and Nuneaton Joint Railway

West Coast Main Line

(Trent Valley line)

Nuneaton North Chord

Nuneaton

Coventry to Nuneaton line

West Coast Main Line

(Trent Valley line)

Ashby and Nuneaton Joint Railway

Croft Quarry

Great Central Main Line

Blaby

Wigston Glen Parva

South Wigston

Midland Counties Railway

Midland Main Line

Leicester and Swannington Railway

Welford Road

no platforms on southbound line

Leicester

Humberstone Road

Great Northern Railway

Humberstone Road Junction

Midland Main Line

Old Dalby Test Track

Great Northern and London &

North Western Joint Railway

Melton Mowbray

Saxby

Midland and Great

Northern Joint Railway

Whissendine

Ashwell

Rutland Railway Museum

Oakham

Manton

Oakham–Kettering line

Seaton branch

Luffenham

Ketton and Collyweston

Ketton Cement Works

Stamford

Stamford East

Essendine branch

Wansford branch

Uffington and Barnack

Bainton Gate

East Coast Main Line

Helpston

Peterborough–Lincoln line

Walton

Peterborough Crescent

Peterborough

Northampton–Peterborough line

Peterborough-Ely line

East Coast Main Line

Could someone look at this reversion and decide whether it's desirable? One editor used {{RoutemapRouteIcon}} to add directional arrows to the list of routes, so you could tell which line referred to which one ( if it departs on the line going to the upper right, or if it's the one going to the left in the diagram, etc.). It was reverted without comment, as if it were just vandalism. Do we want arrows like that on this type of template? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends if it's useful. In this case I'd argue it's not useful, as no line contains more than one item. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping Useddenim. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for the arrows in this case, as mattbuck explained; they'd only be useful in the case of multiples and even then should be used sparingly. However, this is not vandalism and should not have been treated as such; however misguided, it was clearly a good-faith edit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I probably just don't know the conventions for these maps, but at Asfordby, for example, I can't tell which names go with which lines. And there's now some other kind of arrow in use on the last one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no diagram at either Asfordby or Asfordby railway station. Useddenim (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that my description was unclear. Look at the template, which I am transcluding here for your convenience. Look about three-quarters of the way down, to the spot where is mentioned. See the X-shaped lines? Which of those directions belongs to which words? Does the top name refer to the line that goes up and to the left, or up and to the right? I don't know. There's no indication. Now look all the way down, to the very end. See the X-shaped lines? See the ugly ↖ and ↙ characters next to the names? Those indicate which names belong to which lines. Why should this X-shaped spot get direction indicators, but the other X-shaped spot does not get direction indicators? Why should these ugly direction indicators be kept, instead of the standard template ones?

(Also, for those that know me, this will make you smile.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The ↖-type arrows should go. Convention is that the blue direction arrows are used, as they are across many RDTs. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The convention for labeling Route Diagram Templates is

Regular text	Station names
Small text	other features
Small italic text	other railways

which should be evident from inspection, as all the other railways' names are adjacent to

(CONT) or

(LSTR) symbols. So WhatamIdoing, take another look at your example diagram and concentrate carefully: Asfordby is in Regular text, so that means it is a ... yes, Station. Very good! So the arrow in the adjacent column must be for ... follow the line ... no, not the Old Dalby Test Track, there's no connection there ... keep going ... and you've found it, the Great Northern and London and North Western Joint Railway. See, it's not that difficult to figure out, even for you. Useddenim (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That does not answer the question: Which of those two goes in which direction? Does the first name refer to the line that goes up and to the left, or does it refer to the line that goes up and to the right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Useddenim, your continued rude tone is completely inappropriate here. WhatamIdoing is offering legitimate criticism of the mechanics of this diagram - which I agree with - and there is no call whatsoever for you to be condescending. Not only are these standards not universal across RDTs, but it there is nothing in the diagram as it currently stands that indicates which of the two lines is the test track. I have a little bit of experience with RDTs, and I find it confusing - and these diagrams should be readable to the general public. Either arrows are needed in the text, or the diagram should be modified so that there is no possible confusion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rail in decade articles

An inexperienced editor has been adding some comments about the status of railroads in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Members of this project might be interested in producing a balanced approach. (It's usually in the subsection (now) directly before Automobiles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs a bit more worldwide perspective (like the brief mention of the formation of Amtrak and Conrail I put in the 1970s article). Also style and grammar fixes. oknazevad (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/22/train-derail-edmonton-alberta_n_1222522.html

[1]

v t e Rail accidents
Classification	Boiler explosion Derailment Head-on collision Rear-end collision Runaway Signal passed at danger Telescoping Train wreck Tram accident Train-pedestrian fatalities
Chronology	Before 1880 1880–89 1890–99 1900–09 1910–19 1920–29 1930–39 1940–49 1950–59 1960–69 1970–79 1980–89 1990–99 2000–09 2010–19 2020–present
Lists	By country By death toll By classification boiler explosions bridge failures level crossing crashes terrorist incidents