User talk:Rontombontom

→ ko:위키백과토론:대사관#Interpreting a source on a KTX accident

Track union side said, "this day, train driver of an accident befell KTX No,112 is come off duty and return dormitory the accident previous night p.m. 10:31, he is go to the work and check of train during all night in 3rd(the next day) a.m. 1:00, and the train broke down en route from 'Busan railroad cars conservancy'(철도차량관리단) to Busan station." as manifest dissatisfaction for 'one person - crew member system'(1인 승무제).

철도노조측은 "이날 사고를 냈던 KTX 112호 열차 기관사는 사고 전날 밤 10시31분께 근무를 마치고 기숙사로 귀가했고 다음날인 3일 새벽1시께 출근해 밤새 열차를 점검한 뒤 철도차량관리단에서 부산역 구내까지 열차는 이동하던 중 이 같은 사고가 일어났다"며 1인 승무제에 대한 불만을 나타냈다.

Although my translation ability is poor, I wish you had used it more on some of your translation. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I ask to go certain: the train driver who caused the accident only had 2 hours 29 minutes of sleep (from 22:31 to 01:00?) --Rontombontom (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the cause of accident was due to drive while drowsy and negligence of supervisor.(clear the seat without talk)^[1] Also, Busan Korail branch office say(4th) that the train driver had emotional instability about family troubles, and besides he is sleepy drive, this is the reason for the accident.^[2] Thus, the train driver was convicted and fined about ￦(= won) 500 million.^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Idh0854 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Korail was regularly leaving train drivers two and a half hours between two shifts, this was bound to happen, it sounds like the driver was made the culprit... At any rate, thanks a lot especially for the source on the conviction and fine! I was looking for one without success.

May I ask you to look into another similar issue (one with potentially higher relevance for both the Korea Train Express and KTX-I articles than a sleepy drive in a station)? On June 13, 2007, there was another accident, when the yaw damper of a KTX train got free due to a loose screw. All the articles I could find on the accident were written at most a few days later, and cite Korail saying that investigation is still ongoing to determine whether the cause was material failure or bad maintenance. Could you find a source on the end result of that investigation? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree to your idea.

Of course. :) I should be pleased to help. :) But My other work(sandbox work & request of other wikipieda user) will end after a few days, I'll be a little late. (Sorry~!) Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No prob, and I thank you! Being busy with another article, I still haven't worked your above sources into the KTX articles, either (should do today or tomorrow). --Rontombontom (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, so so late.. And sorry, too. I has still find to do so can you wait for me? The KTX small accidents is so much.(..) I will find one-to-one correspondence news, soon. I am awfully sorry for making you wait. T^T Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I was/am busy on other projects anyway, and I'm glad to have a native speaker willing to collaborate on this. (Since then, I worked your sources on the Busan accident into the articles.) --Rontombontom (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, got your message. I came here to raise another point - I think I may have mentioned it before - splitting the article. I would envision an main article "TRAXX" covering background, fundamental design, and in brief the various types. Separate articles would be made for the subtypes - eg AC, MS ,DC , Diesel (or some other way), in some way. I see that the article is actually not that long, but I feel that it is quite 'cramped' in the actual type descriptions sections in the second half. The motivation would be to give room to expand, particularily on work history and owners, as well as solving any issues with infobox, image, and table stack ups. There is should to be plenty of scope for expansion in the future since the locos are still in active operations. The stuff you have recently written would stay on the same page - eg I'm talking about everything below TRAXX#TRAXX_dual_voltage_AC_versions - I just find it a bit too information heavy, and a bit of a mixing pot of data, bold text, and references to many different operating companies.

As an example if F140AC was split, then there could be separate sections for Swiss, German, and private operators .. technically this is possible now - but as section levels are already down to no.3 size any further subsectioning may not improve readability - it's purely a ease of use (ie readabilty, formatting issues, better categorisation etc) suggestion.

I think you may have said before you were against a split, it's just a suggestion I wanted to bring up.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood you when you proposed a spit earlier -- I thought you only want to split off the DC locos. The kind of spit you detail above above makes eminent sense! However, I can't promise to help expand the sub-articles (once created) in the near future, I have some other projects going -- in fact, right now, I'm drafting a detailed article on the AEG 12X. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping the new articles will encourage others to expand them.. But I have been putting off adding extra info because of the congestion in the current space, so I should be able to add a bit. I'll think on and do the split (not necessarily in the near future) I've also been planning to do similar on the Eurosprinter article which probably needs more work than TRAXX. I'll WP:BOLD and do it sooner rather than later.Sf5xeplus (talk)

wunderbar (one of the ten words in german I know) I noticed railcolor have a history so I added that see http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1406157&id=73274&action=portrait . I don't see any errors - the only confusion I have is the electronics section - according to http://books.google.com/books?id=cpFEm3aqz_MC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351#v=onepage&q&f=false says "The main transformer ... has six secondary windings supplying six four quadrant controllers (4Qc), and the auxiliaries and the train bus" I assumed this meant 1 winding for the train bus, 1 for auxilliarys and 4 for power ie one each per motor - but this doesn't match the article since it says there a 3 modules acting as (rectifiers) per bogie - so it must be actually 6 windings for motive power (3 per bogie) (which matches the article), plus extra windings for auxilliarys

Correct, the auxiliaries have extra windings. It was difficult to interpret the language of my source regarding whether it's two or three extra windings, but in the end I think it means two, and put it into the article that way. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You can always dodge it and say "plus extra separate windings for both aux. and train bus" - then you are still right for any number...Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a terminology question. Passenger trains have power cables for the supply of air conditioners and lighting, and data cables for stuff like push-pull operation and door remote control. What are the most proper (British) English terms for these? I ask because I can't find either in my UIC dictionary, and would have guessed that "train bus" refers to the second (the data cable). --Rontombontom (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So the outputs of the three modules per bogie must be connected in parallel then to supply the two modules use as traction inverters for the motors (1 each) ?? I only ask because it's not an immediately obvious choice and is different from the choice used in DB 101, DB 120 (and probably many others) of 4 windings for 4 motors eg see de:DBAG-Baureihe_101#Traktionsstrom and de:DB-Baureihe_120#Die_elektrische_Ausr.C3.BCstung

In the article, AEG gives a smooth waveform resulting from the phase shifts between the four quadrant modules as the reason. (From the articles, it's also clear that the 12X system was more advanced than either the Class 120 system or ABB's system in the Class 101.) --Rontombontom (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The only omission I can think of is not mentioning head endpower (and auxilliary power) both of which are present according to Electric railways 1880-1990 page 351. Oh and check the railcolor page - it gives some rough dates and locations, and a builders number.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess it should pass WP:Good article - why not put it forward.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The traction power is in the infobox, but I wanted to put it in the text too, with a (source-warranted) comparison with the Class 120 power (once I find it again). Aux power is not in the Electric Railways..., but I found it in my articles, though it's unclear whether one of the two converters described is for the train supply or both are for the on-board auxiliaries only. I can't find some other data in any source, like height and width (only the UIC 505-1 loading gauge is given), or bogie pivot distance(!).

Details on the operation history of the vehicle is IMO the one important subject missing from the article (would GA nominate it once that's augmented). The sources I found up until now are of little Wiki use, being mostly photo captions, but the railcolor page you give can be exploited. I looked at the German Wiki article, it's short and the extra compared to the English version is about the operations history, too, unfortunately, without any sources - so more research needed (at least I know what to look for). --Rontombontom (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I understand the bit about the three transformer windings per bogie - it's just done for a smoothing effect - and the numbers add up now there are extra windings for the auxs. Good luck finding operations details with enough coverage to be useful - I usually assume this impossible unless you know someone who works in the Deutsche Bahn computer dept. - but where there's a will there's a way.

By the way I created the stubby start for LEW Hennigsdorf plus some redirects eg see Special:WhatLinksHere/LEW_Hennigsdorf. That should make an extra wiki link for the article - I have to go and find all the other articles that should be linking to it, but either lack the link, or have a different capitalisation... Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also check for "Henningsdorf" -- a quite common mis-spelling (I committed it in the article, too...) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

terminology not sure but Head end power is the link, probably ETS in UK english. Can't think of any common names for the control cables. I'd think the "train bus" must mean ETS (eg lights, air conditioning), and the auxilliarys mean power for traction motor fans, pumps, heat exchangers in the locomotive. The "train conrol bus" wouldn't need enough power to require a main transformer winding (or at least it seems unlikely) - I'd guess the power for it would be from an inverter or relatively small transformer fed from either of the other two, or even a UPS battery bank charged from an auxilliary. misread, yes I would have thought train-bus means ethernet type connections, but I'm thinking about modern trains with wi-fi and dotmatrix passenger displays .. that's probably not applicable here - don't know not sure. A google reveals the term "Train Communication Network" , eg but that post dates the 12x. Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I used ETS and the Wikilink in the 12X article, thanks for the pointer. Regarding the data cable, in Hungarian (my mother tongue), it is usually just called "UIC cable", because it is standardised. Following that track, I just found that Wikipedia does have a UIC 568 article. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info (I still confuse AEG Daimler Benz and ABB Daimler Benz) - especially the pdf - I didn't realise Daimler kept documents online going that far back - I did a search on their website and they have quite a lot relating the Adtranz. - that's my next article to reference after I finish what I'm doing with Railjet

On the subject of Adtranz I'm hoping to get a better list of major factories - I find that having both British Rail Class 482 and NSB El 18 (for example) both listed as having the same builder (Adtranz) a little confusing - so I hoping to narrow this down to major contractor level. This is going to be a bit complex as not only are there the rolling stock factories, but also traction component suppliers, signallling equipment manufacturers etc etc (probably too many to mention) - anyway if you have any info (even if unreferenced) please drop it on the Adtranz talk page - all I need is the common name, or the city location of any of the plant to get me started. (currently the only ones that I'm immediatedly aware of are (ex-Henschel) in Kassel, some of the UK ones plus a better knowledge of ABB's electrical facilities.) Cheers.Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#General_points_on_linking_style : 5th bullet point "When possible, avoid placing links next to each.." Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Right the next bullet point says, Articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles, due to their larger number of technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context., which IMO applies. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ok I haven't got any reason to continue to explain good faith edits. I thought I was helping but it turns out I am your cunt. You want to be right then do that. I'll just fuck off then. I can't be bothered with this stupid shit. ok. Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh!? Beg your pardon!? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hummm.. Sorry, I don't know mean of 'IGCT technology' in ko:위키백과토론:대사관#Interpreting a source on a KTX accident.. What is mean this..?;; Umm, if 'IGCT technology' is mean that IGBT, I can understand & translation that. :) Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh, sorry, the sentence I quoted doesn't mention IGCT, only the sentences directly preceding it. IGCT was used in the HSR-350x, but they switched to IGBT in the KTX-II, and that sentence says something about reliability. (I do get the part which says that IGBT wasn't yet available in 1996.) I expanded the quote in the request. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Archive 2 of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald talk page for another editor's recommendations on title case. He said, "Another minor change that should be made is to render titles of articles and works in Title Case. Such minor changes are permissible and actually required by the MoS. (Not everyone even knows that the MoS requires titles in Title Case, but it does.)"--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied to your question on my Talk page about Help:Wiki markup. —Frungi (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for all your extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and work during the peer review of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm humbled :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For immense amount of highly expert work in the peer review of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm even more humbled :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP has been the workhorse on the referencing work, and the only one with some of the written sources.In 4 months I never saw him/her stop for even a day. Just after FA nomination, WP mentioned a RW interruption. We're just "lucky" on timing. Given his/her knack for briefness and understatemewnt, I hope they are OK. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I wondered too, after the PR experience – let's hope it's temporary and nothing serious! --Rontombontom (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This user hasn't been back and hasn't fixed what he broke. I'm inclined simply to revert rather than attempt to merge the two versions together. I don't know if I have the time to sort through everything he changed, but I'd like the bus section restored to the template if you know a quick way to restore it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored the bus parameter and other dunped parameters to that template. It wasn't a quick way, though... --Rontombontom (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I still got to fix some of the other changes he made, like changing stations which are above/belowground to only being above ground, completely removing other information from articles. I'm still half inclined to feel this guys entire set of changes should be rolled back on everything he touched. He's created far more work than anything he fixed.--Crossmr (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page. I'll have a look at the THSR article over the next few days and see if I can make any tweaks or suggestions. Taiwantaffy (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article HSR-350x you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:HSR-350x for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw your question om WT:MOSNUM, and was unhappy to see that you received no answer, so I'm answering here. Using that example, it's very easy to tell at a glance that there are more wheelsmen than porters. Spelling out the numbers when there are that many of them only makes for a longer and more tedious sentence. It is because of cases like this that WP:ORDINAL starts with "As a general rule". Hope this helps. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article reviewed, for GA. Suggestions on the page. KnowIG (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald just made Featured Article. Thanks again for your important & expert help during peer review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can find it from Korea Transportation Database > Transportation Statistics > Transportation System > Transportation Result of Railroad System (Station - Station O/D, Monthly), although it needs an ID. KORAIL gives their data to KTDB, so this datas are as same as its official statistical book(한국철도통계연보; Statistical Book of Korea Railroad) from KORAIL. I calculated ridership of KTX based on KTDB's data, and I hope it can help you.

If you want more result(such as monthly result or riderships of each station), ask me. :-) - Chugun (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, all the data I missed! These days I have almost no time for Wikipedia, but I will look and will update my ridership diagram in the next week or so. --Rontombontom (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done! :-) - Chugun (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of SS Edmund Fitzgerald know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975

The SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a 729-foot (222 m) Great Lakes freighter that made headlines after sinking in Lake Superior in a massive storm on November 10, 1975 with near hurricane-force winds and 35-foot (11 m) waves. The Fitzgerald suddenly sank approximately 17 miles (27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay, at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Her crew of 29 perished without sending any distress signals, and no bodies were recovered; she is the largest boat to have sunk in the Great Lakes. The Fitzgerald carried taconite from mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo and other ports. Her size, record-breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" endeared the Fitzgerald to boat watchers. Many theories, books, studies and expeditions have examined the cause of the sinking. Her sinking is one of the most well-known disasters in the history of Great Lakes shipping and is the subject of Gordon Lightfoot's 1976 hit song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SMS station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nima Farid (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Near-Earth object you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mdob -- Mdob (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Near-Earth object is now a Good Article. It would be nice if you could supply a related interesting fact to ...Did You Know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdob (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Near-Earth object you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Near-Earth object for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mdob -- Mdob (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

On 23 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Near-Earth object, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the search for near-Earth asteroids large enough to cause a global catastrophe (example pictured) is almost complete, and efforts now focus on smaller asteroids? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Near-Earth object), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I started to Peer Review Near-earth object and asked for another to join in if they have the time.--MONGO 15:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

much nicer-er, I like the four wide.
Three clarences are all in separate spots, I'll need to diagram, plus the Bell to Newnes division needs a bridge under.
Top Points could do with a stan and buffers up around the corner. Dave Rave (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a map on which I see the difference between 1st and 2nd Clarence, and realise that the present one can be considered the fourth. Regarding bridge under, do you mean that the Ten Tunnels Deviation crossed the old line? I'll try to implement those on the diagram.

Sorry for the limitations of my English, but what's "stan and buffers up around the corner"? Rontombontom (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I wish I knew, the buffer stops might be useful as the line is rather long past the station, and there used to be two separate areas for the dead ends.
I think the current Clarence is the third, 1st and 3rd should be adjacent on separate lines, one on the old line, one on Dargans.
Most maps show the old line, Dargans deviates and runs west 'below' the original which passes under it and onto the present road. Dave Rave (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

oh, you did more, I hadn't looked.
The Dargans deviation may have had a small change, which you're showing as two rather distinct lines, but I'd not think them worthy of a separate entry up to Newnes Jn Stn.
Newnes Line and the balloon loop are more together than slightly separate and they split from the main line before the station
Orig Newnes Stn isn't on the Newnes line/balloon loop, but just NW of the jctn
If you count 2nd and 4th Clarence, then ok, I'd put 1st and 2nd on the same line rather than slightly spaced.
Top Points I can see what you're thinking, seems ok. Stn is a ways before the buffer stops.
The red/blue at bottom points could be extra split as the old points to the diff gauge main line now goes into the depot. Dave Rave (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastern end of the Dargans Deviation: on maps I could find, there is a clear separation between it and the Ten Tunnels Deviation. I originally used parallel lines icons to draw them side by side, but Useddenim edited it, I guess for better visibility. Will probably revert it back to parallel lines.

Newnes Junction station: OK, I'll turn it into a parallel lines station with the actual junction to the north of it.

Regarding the old Newnes Junction station: on the maps I found, at this location, the Dargans Deviation was to the northwest of the Ten Tunnels Deviation, which would be just where the Balloon Loop is today. I checked on Google Maps, where the Dargans Deviation and the Wolgan Valley Railway are clearly visible, and indeed end at the Balloon Loop. The deviating line with the wagons on your photo was probably a dead-end spur, not an earlier version of the Loop. The station however was after, not before the junction, I'll look how to implement that.

As for the separation between the Balloon Loop and the present main line, I will probably revert this back to parallel lines, too.

Top Points: now I also see what you meant, but, on one hand, now there is no space for extra track to a buffer stop, on the other hand, despite its distance from the platforms, isn't the end of the line technically part of the station?

Bottom Points Depot: I think an extra branching would only be necessary if the original standard gauge tracks ran to the side of the present depot, not under it. Rontombontom (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The pic shows Newnes line with old spur for Newnes carriages, that weren't allowed on the main line, that pic is very pre-balloon loop. And the pic shows the stn post junction.
Black Smoke Blue Mountains does show the deviation in two lines as you have it, maybe somehow not spread them so far apart ? Dave Rave (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now, but it may take hours before I publish the update. Rontombontom (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please check if I implemented everything correctly! Rontombontom (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

you've dual lined the NJStn, but, the balloon loop is very separate from the main line, it loops off the extra line and back to the same spot post the stn. Dave Rave (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh shit my bad, I knew that but somehow messed up. I'll correct it.Rontombontom (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

just checking my pics, there are two main lines through the stn, with two lines on the North side, the northernest to the loop and the inner to the stn which currently (2011) dead ends but has points so it went somewhere Dave Rave (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

that's better, the cross linking is old (not there) and dead (not linked) so hard to show. Dave Rave (talk)

That crosslinking was meant to be the 1910-1932 Newnes Railway connection to the main line, but on second thought, I have no info on where it ran. Do you? Rontombontom (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a map, the Newnes Railway ran exactly where the connection to the Balloon Loop runs today, so I deleted that crosslinking. Rontombontom (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bottom Points, you've added Clarence, Cockerton, old Top Points two ends, this, that, but you're worried about the current depot being extant or under the main line ?
You can see the bend in the main line from the orig points to the ten tunnels, and old links between. Dave Rave (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I misread you, but my issue is where the pre-Ten-Tunnels-Deviation line ran compared to the current depot. If a station, depot, yard or whatever is built on top of old infrastructure, BSicons will be drawn over it, not split. If it ran to the east (meeting the current line just before the depot) or to the west of the depot, then yes it's proper to draw it around. Which was it? It's not clear to me from the pictures I found.

On that note: can you tell me whether the heritage railway was originally built with Top Points at the current location or at the original location? Also, was Edgecombe Siding re-built from the start as only a dead-end siding or did it have a second point at the northern end? Depending on that, I'll have to change the disused sections from light blue into light red. Rontombontom (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'can be seen' deviation of a line passed the points area shows the dual line moving a space past the old points cottage into the tenth tunnel.
the orig Top Points is a location for the top points, not the station, top point dead end is very diff, 'as you've shown', to the current.
Edgecombe .... my walk doesn't definitively say either way, would have to ask others, there's room but I didn't see 'evidence'.Dave Rave (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bottom Points, Zig Zag Stn, 92.1 mileage, are all very the same point in distance. Dave Rave (talk)

For distance, Eskbank should be spaced well below the viaducts and top points Dave Rave (talk)

Hm. The map at bottom here indicates the original line went around the present depot location to the west and had a junction with the deviation beyond. Is this how you meant it? This will be difficult to implement, will have to find some new icons. The map also indicates that the present Top Points location was used in 1908-1910 already, and I see no signs of a point removal at Edgecombe on your video, so I already edited those two.

Between 1975-2012, Edgecombe, I have no details

I would read that graphic as two separate views overlayed showing a representation Dave Rave (talk)

BSicons aren't meant to indicate relative distance, but I also wanted to draw Eskbank below Top Points, so that's two votes against Useddenim's one, so I'll change that. Same about the Zig Zag platform location. Rontombontom (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The station is very post 1975, and the signal box points box too Dave Rave (talk)

All planned edits now done. Rontombontom (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That takes a while to re-review it all ... you missed the original Newnes J station, move it to the Newnes line. Dargans, was built, then Newnes line was built with the station, then the ten tunnels necessitated the moving of NJStn
Dargans is over the old line but I think that would have been completed in a day, it's there, under, as a remnant of a cutting, but there's no more bridge there than there is the old original bridge over the ten tunnels line where the Chifley Road goes over it. Dave Rave (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to close that view of the station and I looked at it. You can see a platform. There'd be another, I think you can see the edge behind the building. Can you draw it more like Blacktown/Werris Creek ... two sided ? Dave Rave (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transilien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombardier. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rontombontom. Thank you for your work on List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2025. Another editor, MainlyTwelve, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Reviews -- Thanks for starting this list!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MainlyTwelve}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mainly 22:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)