Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:New South Wales A and B sets#Requested move 1 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sanyo Electric Railway Aboshi Line#Requested move 3 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sinsyuan✍️PJTW 03:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The article Guild of Railway Artists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced article about a private club. Tagged for notability concerns and all primary sources for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Railway accidents and incidents in Australia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:S-Line Corridor#Requested move 29 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 02:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

So I am making this article, Draft:Martinsburg Street Railway and I want help with small fixes, images, and other things I missed. Any help is welcome! Wobs100 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've just discovered that there is apparent confusion regarding train/tram depots and sheds. I've always understood that these are not synonymous - a train shed being a roof over a station platforms and tracks with a depot being for stabling and/or maintenance (and our train shed article reflects that), but a "tram shed" is synonymous with "tram depot"" However -

• Depot (a dab page) Train depot or train shed, a place where locomotives and rolling stock are sheltered and maintained when not in use.
• Train shed is an article about the overall roof at a station (Trainshed redirects here) but it includes a section about Car barns that are what I would call a tram depot and is not very related to the rest of the article.
• Train depot redirects to Train station
• Tram shed redirects to Train shed
• Tramshed is a disambig
• Tram depot redirects to Train shed
• Category:Tram depots is about tram stabling/maintenance facilities
• Railway depot redirects to Motive power depot
• Railway shed redirects to Shed#Uses, which links Motive power depot (piped as "Engine shed"), Goods shed, Train shed and Snow shed
• Engine shed redirects to Motive power depot
• Carriage shed is a dab including Carriage shed (rail), a very short stub about "an undercover facility for storing, maintaining, and preparing passenger rail vehicles"
• Locomotive shed and Locomotive depot redirect to Motive power depot

This is a mess, is any of it caused by British/American English differences? What should the structure be? Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There certainly is an ENGVAR issue, the Americans seem to use "depot" to mean a small passenger station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose. In American English, depot is more or less interchangeable with passenger station. There's no formal definition or distinction in play and the usage is inconsistent. "Train shed" is the roof at a station and does not (in general) refer to a maintenance facility. The equivalent of "Motive power depot" is probably engine terminal. "Shops" is a frequent colloquial reference to a heavy maintenance facility such as Beech Grove Shops. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if you took part in this discussion. Thank you. Fortek67 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karnup railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karnup railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I see that this WikiProject has a coverage on the US railway system and its history very well which is good but on the other hand it misses layout and resources for railways of other countries e.g., China, Australia, EU countries etc. They have good railway connectivity too. Feel free to add your thoughts if this needs more attention. Sddarealone (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Other WikiProjects and taskforces are available. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there one for China? I'm working on an article on some railway station from there so it would be helpful to know if there's one. Thanks. Sddarealone (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not there, so assume not. I can't speak Chinese so can't say, but I couldn't find one at zh.wikipedia.org either... Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 19:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Well then there's the scope of creating the child project for other countries which haven't been added yet and then add it to WP:TRAINS. Another user has raised a similar issue on Polish rail articles. Sddarealone (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Before creating any more child projects, you should ensure that there is sufficient support. There's no point creating one if you're going to be the only participant; indeed, it might get taken to WP:MFD - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Now if I would be able to recruit enough participants, would said task force have to be under this WikiProject? I was thinking of placing it under WikiProject Poland at first. Fortek67 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67: It's possible to be under both, see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways#Parent Projects; later on the same page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways#Banners, we find that a talk page might use either {{WikiProject Trains|India=yes}} or {{WikiProject India|railways=yes}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I have edited a couple of bits on the main WikiProject page which are overly American-ised for fairness, because there are at least 3 other countries in the world. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Some people mover and streetcar systems lack dedicated articles for their individual stations or stops, yet have adjacent station modules. Should the adjacent stations modules for these particular systems be retained or removed? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Retain, but either redirect the links to the appropriate "parent" article or remove the redlinks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to provide some additional context for why I created this RfC. Many airport people mover systems and streetcar systems lack dedicated articles covering their individual stations or stops. This is often because the individual stations or stops themselves do not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and thus are not suited to have dedicated articles.

Furthermore, my impression of the adjacent stations module used in railway (and even bus and other transportation) systems is that the module is intended to assist readers while traveling between articles; specifically articles regarding specific stations along a particular railway line. If a reader were to be interested in reading about or interested in the sequencing or service patterns of these stations, the adjacent stations module is designed to provide a simple, intuitive interface within the infoboxes located at the top of these articles.

However, many of these systems that lack dedicated station articles still have these modules, while others do not. This has left me feeling a bit perplexed over whether these systems should either consistently retain these modules or remove them altogether. I have noticed that many of these modules which do exist are placed in articles covering a shared terminal with larger railway systems, where said terminals are notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Here, the modules would instead link to redirects to the main articles about those systems, instead of standalone station articles. In cases where these modules do not exist, the people mover/streetcar systems themselves are often simply listed as a connection instead at the shared terminal's article.

For full transparency however, my personal stance is leaning more towards the latter case, since my impression is that the practicality of the module is rendered a bit redundant if there are no station articles to link to, and that simply listing the system as a connection effectively communicates the same amount of information to a reader. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If the stops are not notable, links to stop→line redirects are often redundant because the line itself is already linked nearby, often in an infobox or table such as

More information Previous station, Notional Rail ...

Previous station	Notional Rail	Next station
Abattoir Avenue	Tedious Tramway	Sewer Street

Close

where the two outer links redirect to the inner one. Certes (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

For me, an important use of the module is standardizing colors and icons. For example, Module:Adjacent stations/Basel tramway network. No termini are defined at all. This may qualify as off-label use; it might be better if there was an explicit flag that prevented using it for station links at all. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. I think such a flag would be useful. Other templates like TM:rcr and TM:rcb depend on this module for the icons. FWIW the docs seem to say that you could use a Template:system color template instead, but some of these color templates seem to have been superseded into the adjacent stations modules, such as at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Template:VR color once termini and stations came into play. Judging from Category:Rail transport color templates it seems like the main usage of such color-only templates lies within the UK rail systems. IMO using the adjacent stations module feels more centralized since it can fulfill both the icon standardization and the station sequence purpose as a single module. YuniToumei (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "system color" is a vestige of the {{s-line}} templates. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I also second the flag suggestion, I think it's a good idea. If there is a need for some systems to standardize colors and icons, then yeah, the modules should definitely be retained.

But yeah, Certes provided an excellent visual example of what I was initially referring to. In my opinion, when the two outer links don't link to actual station articles, it defeats the primary purpose of using the module. At that point, it lacks utility and just becomes visual clutter. A link listing the smaller system as a connection is far more elegant. And unless there wasn't really a need to standardize colors and icons, then there isn't a need to have a module for those systems in the first place. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryScarlett: Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without, so far as I can tell, exhausting the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? Where, for instance, is the prior discussion that has reached deadlock and made this RfC necessary? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I'm very, very sorry. This was the very first RfC I had opened and I wasn't familiar with the necessary procedures that I needed to follow prior to opening it. It wasn't my intention to bypass procedure, and I promise to not do it again next time. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt I am the only person who thinks this could have been worded in a much kinder, less bitey way, @Redrose64:... Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I tend to concur. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

How would you have worded it? Bear in mind that RfC is not a first step, it is an instrument of last resort, used when all other methods have failed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Hi so-and-so, Wikipedia RfCs are normally used when other discussions have not reached a fuller consensus. You may wish to look at WP:RFCBEFORE about other methods of gaining consensus on this matter. Hope that helps! Any questions, let me know." Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You see how that is much nicer and worded much more gently than that above. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This follows a discussion at Comet (train). Over the past month or so, an anonymous editor with multiple TAs has repeatedly edited train articles to fit their definition of a multiple unit or locomotive – especially those that don't fit neatly into either term. Some trainset articles are categorized as locomotives, others as multiple units. I think this started after they were reverted at Turboliner for replacing Category:Scrapped locomotives with Category:Scrapped multiple units. I think this opens up a broader discussion about how these trains should be categorized. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Related: Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)#DMUs or not? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We should always follow how reliable sources describe the vehicles, even if this results in designations that don't match our definitions and/or inconsistencies between similar vehicles. If reliable sources differ then go with what the manufacturer/operator (as appropriate to the scope of the individual article) describe them as. It's not our job to define reality only to describe it through the lens of reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Go by terminology used in WP:RS. Skimming through a book describing some trains where the Wiki articles had wording contested, (Johnston, Howard; Harris, Ken (2005). Jane's Train Recognition Guide. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-081895-1.), on p. 247 calls the ICE 1 and ICE 2 "trainsets": "Each set comprises two power cars and a variable number of trailers. The ICE-2 units are shorter trailer formations with just one power car and driving trailer." For context, the ICE 3 is called a "true emu" for having distributed traction (p. 248). ETR 500 also called a "trainset" (p. 280). In contrast, the British Rail Class 43 (HST) is described as "The concept of single-ended Class 43 locomotives attached to each end of a rake of Mk 3 coaching stock has lasted the test of time, and almost all locomotives are still in service." (p. 394, yeah the book is 20 years old). Related, the 2005/2006 edition of Jane's World Railways also lists the ICE 1 and ICE 2 under "Electric railcars or multiple-units" on the tabulated data on p. 187 with a footnote indicating the specs listed are for the power cars; not listed at "Electric locomotives" a page earlier. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. Category:Elevated railway stations and Category:Elevated railway stations by country have today been created and I've commenced populating. It seemed strange that there were categories for railway stations located underground and in highway medians, yet not a similar category for those that are located (well) above ground. I've made a start on adding some; yet some assistance would be appreciated. There are some inboxes that have added the structure; however, many who have not. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it. This requires a bit of care though. For example, is Utrecht Centraal station elevated? Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there an extant chart template using the new style which can be used to show historical yearly data? Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Airport_statistics/doc which makes a simple line graph for average daily ridership at a station by year and pulls said data from wikidata for universal usage Jspace727 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Using passenger usage data, some UK lines such as Kyle of Lochalsh line#Passenger volumes use a formatted table rather than a chart like that. One benefit of doing it like this is that it can be updated when the yearly statistics are released, while a template like that cannot be so easily modified. I look at the source code for that chart and want to faint. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thats a table, not a line graph for a single station. Could be fairly easy to make a new chart that basically copies that but changes the labels etc Jspace727 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Again a table, but Dundee railway station#Passenger volume shows a table used for yearly passenger usage. Ultimately there has never been a consensus on preferring either tables or charts (both have their uses), but in my (albeit limited) experience, I haven't seen a chart used for this purpose. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

We do not need tables or charts of contextless passenger statistics. Major trends that are commented on by reliable independent sources can be discussed in the prose, as can (sparingly) statistics at relevant points in time. That table at Dundee railway station#Passenger volume is a prime example of what not to do - it's a giant table with two decades of data with absolutely no context. It is useless (and even disruptive due to the width) to the vast majority of readers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We have two articles about the two new train stations that are both confusingly called "Palenque railway station" even though neither one of them is in Palenque.

Palenque railway station was originally about the Tren Maya station. You can see that at this old version of the article: .

Palenque railway station (Tren Maya) was created in December and is also about the Tren Maya station.

Palenque railway station has since been partially converted to be about the new Tren Interoceánico station, but it's still mostly about the Tren Maya station, so it's a mess at the moment.

Not sure what to do about this. It would have been nice if the Mexican railway authorities had built just one station and put it in the town. Or re-used the old station. GA-RT-22 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The article currently named Palenque railway station is connected to Wikidata item Pakal Ná railway station (Q111757281), which the Wikidata statements indicate is the through station. The article named Palenque railway station (Tren Maya) is connected to Wikidata item Palenque railway station (Q131545189) which the Wikidata statements indicate is the Tren Maya terminal station.

Based on that, it looks like the Palenque railway station article should be renamed as Pakal Ná railway station and be written to speak only to the through station. Tomiĉo (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no through station. One is the east terminus of the Interoceánico, the other is the west terminus of the Maya. They are about 2 km apart. GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What do the station nameboards on the platforms say? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Estación Pakal Ná at the Tren Interoceánico one, and Estación Palenque at the Tren Maya one. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Then name them Pakal Ná railway station and Palenque railway station respectively. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The names aren't the problem. The problem is that we have two articles about two stations, but both of them are actually about the Tren Maya station. One or both articles need to be re-written. That's why I came here instead of fixing it myself. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting the confusion in the article content, it is nevertheless evident which stations each article is meant to speak to based on the Wikidata items that the articles are connected to. We can rename the articles as User:Redrose64 outlined above, and following that it will be clear which content in the articles needs to be adjusted. Tomiĉo (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

So I thought the plan was to repurpose the old Palenque railway station article to talk about the Interoceánico station instead of the Tren Maya station. But now it appears to be about the old, abandoned station in the center of Pakal Ná? GA-RT-22 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The old Pakal Ná station and the Tren Interoceánico Pakal Ná station are one and the same. Both buildings are located next to each other on the same platform. It's one article. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. It has come to my attention that Polish State Railways rolling stock titles are inconsistent with other rolling stock articles. They are also technically wrong. What I'm saying that it looks like every title looks like this: "PKP class ..." (PKP class ED250) – it should be "PKP Class ..." – this is inconsistent with titles such as British Rail Class 345, DB Class 218, etc.

Any thoughts on this? Fortek67 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

What matters isn't whether it's consistent with other countries, but whether reliable (English language) sources treat the word "class" as a proper noun in the context of Polish railways. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly fair point raised. But at the same time a lot of these articles were created decades ago by users from pl.wiki, with little consideration of what the article title should actually be. Then it was just followed by other articles. Fortek67 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? If you think the articles might be titled incorrectly, do the research to see if they should be renamed. If your research shows "Class" should be capitalised as a proper noun then you've got the evidence you need for a mass RM. If your research shows reliable sources consistently don't capitalise "class" in that context then the articles are in the correct place, but it would be useful to document that somewhere so others don't have to spend the time doing the same research in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have a naming convention that specifies the capitalisation of "class". They're inconsistent in the UK, for a start. Have a look at these pre-1948 British railways:

More information Uppercased "Class" favoured, Lowercased "class" favoured ...

Uppercased "Class" favoured	Lowercased "class" favoured	No clear preference
Category:Barry Railway locomotives Category:Caledonian Railway locomotives Category:Glasgow and South Western Railway locomotives Category:Great Central Railway locomotives Category:Great Eastern Railway locomotives Category:Great North of Scotland Railway locomotives Category:Great Northern Railway (Great Britain) locomotives Category:Great Western Railway locomotives Category:Highland Railway locomotives Category:Hull and Barnsley Railway locomotives Category:Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway locomotives Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives Category:London and North Western Railway locomotives Category:London, Midland and Scottish Railway locomotives Category:Metropolitan Railway locomotives Category:Midland Railway locomotives Category:North Eastern Railway locomotives	Category:London and South Western Railway locomotives Category:London, Brighton and South Coast Railway locomotives Category:London, Chatham and Dover Railway locomotives Category:Rhymney Railway locomotives Category:South Eastern and Chatham Railway locomotives Category:South Eastern Railway (UK) locomotives Category:Southern Railway (UK) locomotives Category:Taff Vale Railway locomotives	Category:Furness Railway locomotives Category:North British Railway locomotives Category:North Staffordshire Railway locomotives

Close

As can be seen, there's no general agreement except within one railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Although all post-British Rail trains do have widely held consensus to be upper-case "Class". Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 18:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Redrose's point could perhaps be more precisely expressed as "except within each classification scheme". Pre-nationalisation (and arguably pre-privatisation) there is essentially a 1:1 correspondence between rolling stock classification schemes and railways. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Well this has just made things more complex... I'm not sure what's better now? Fortek67 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is do the research I mentioned a couple of comments ago to determine what is correct for PKP rolling stock. Neither capitalised or uncapitalised is inherently better than the other. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I've discovered List of rolling stock used in Poland – it has recently been created by another user, who copy and pasted from a couple of existing articles (List of PKP locomotives and multiple units and Train numbering in Poland). They did add their own work, but this article is way too long, so I've proposed a split, see discussion.

I'm not exactly sure what to name these new articles, so consensus here would be great, and all help would be appreciated. Thank you! Fortek67 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Also you may want to see previous discussions on the talk page. Fortek67 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)