Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2023

Instead of making a new article I added a new section to Auburn, Indiana page. Admittedly it is a bit stubby. Any reason why it should have it own page or? Any recommendations to improve it? I am not a good wordsmith and have been sticking to maps since I returned to Wikipedia. BeckyAnne(talk) 04:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back! The port authority doesn't justify its own article (I don't think), but Fort Wayne and Jackson Railroad would be a good place to discuss the history of the line. I have some sources and can take a stab at it. Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft in progress: User:Mackensen/Fort Wayne and Jackson Railroad. Some of the Michigan side of the story is told at Indiana Northeastern Railroad. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, I am only familiar with the Auburn bit because of work, and physically located close to it. BeckyAnne(talk) 15:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved to main space: Fort Wayne and Jackson Railroad. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't find anywhere online about the charter date of the Port Authority. Probably would need to go to archives but that is beyond my time allowance. BeckyAnne(talk) 16:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you found the information, where did you find that? BeckyAnne(talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Graydon Meints says 1981 is when the city buys the branch; the incorporation may be earlier.^[1] I didn't go digging further than that. Excerpts of the book are available on Google Books; I own the Michigan volumes but not that one. Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally there's a few sources to use for railroads. There's a wide array of published books, though most of mine that are less broad than the entire U.S. focus on New England, where I live. As Mackensen just mentioned, there's books about the railroad history of essentially all regions. Other sources that are useful include newspaper archives and trade magazines, like Trains or Railway Age. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me just add from past, somewhat painful experience, it can take some work to figure out what happens to the railway lines that were owned by the systems that were conveyed to Conrail but were not themselves incorporated into Conrail. One of a few things might happen: (1) abandoned outright, (2) owned by the bankrupt estate and operated by Conrail, (3) same as (2), but operated by a new third party, (4) conveyed to a non-bankrupt carrier, (5) bought by state or local government and then leased to a new or existing carrier. Newspaper reporting from the 1970s and 1980s is occasionally vague on the sequence of events. You can see Wilmington and Northern Branch for an example of untangling a complicated history. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A favorite example of mine is the Norwich and Worcester Railroad, which was leased in the late 1800s and included in the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad system, then Penn Central. Conrail inherited part of the line, but the rest actually reverted to the N&W which was still a corporate entity. The N&W tried to return as an independent railroad, but the Providence and Worcester Railroad, which also was leased by the New Haven until splitting from Penn Central in a complicated case that played out over several years, convinced regulators and politicians it should take over the remainder. In the 1980s, P&W bought the rest from Conrail (which also involved court cases over how much Conrail's piece was worth), and now P&W owns the entire line. Conrail's final system plan is over 300 pages long. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And that's only volume 1! Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

More information L Line Phase 3 ...

v t e Eastside Transit Corridor
Legend
L Line Phase 3
L Line to Azusa Union Station ‍‍ Phase 1 US 101 Little Tokyo/​Arts District Regional Connector ‍ (2023) Metrolink and Amtrak Los Angeles River Metrolink Pico/Aliso US 101 Mariachi Plaza I-5 / I-10 Soto Indiana SR 60 I-710 Maravilla East LA Civic Center Atlantic Phase 2 Atlantic (relocated) Atlantic/Whittier The Citadel Greenwood Rosemead Norwalk Lambert

Close

Hello! I sincerely apologize if this isn't the appropriate place to do this, but I need help with something. I'm completely brand new and unexperienced with creating and editing route-map templates. The only other two things that I would like for this particular route-map template that I've modified is for

1. Add a red continuation arrow facing upwards from Union Station. I've tried to do this, but this seems to be throwing both arrows out of alignment.

2. Remove the blue station circle from the left side at Atlantic and have it just be a straight line only. I've run into the exact same issue as the first one.

3. Make the blue just north of Pico/Aliso light blue as well in order to reflect the section between Union station and Pico/Aliso as temporarily closed for now.

4. Fix the weird double tunnel entrance at Indiana.

Please feel free to make any adjustments and improvements if you see any areas of potential improvement.

Thank you! --OrdinaryJosh (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the first three. I don't understand the issue around Indiana--there's the tunnel portal above, and the overpass below? Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There was still an issue with the CONT arrow, which I fixed. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the double portal at Indiana. It didn't need the !~PORTALg bit. BeckyAnne(talk) 16:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much guys! I really appreciate it. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait actually, one more thing, could the parking symbol be added to the first Atlantic? (the open one, not the relocated one.) Thanks again! OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Added BeckyAnne(talk) 21:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again! --OrdinaryJosh (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! My sincere apologies for the repeated requests, but I believe that this one should be the last.

1. On both Template:A Line (Los Angeles Metro) and Template:L Line (Los Angeles Metro), I can't seem to get the collapsed sections of the first tables to line up with the rest of them. If anyone can help with fixing this, as well as improving in any other additional areas, I would very much appreciate this!

2. This is more of a question, but would it be possible to theoretically fit a collapsed section within another collapsed section within a table? Like for example, when you click on "show" under Regional Connector on both Template:A Line (Los Angeles Metro) and Template:E Line (Los Angeles Metro), would it then be possible to then have it as that after doing so, you could once again click "show" to expand the sections for "Foothill Extension Phase 2B" and "Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2" for each respective template? If so, how? Would it be possible to do this for both tables?

Again, thank you so much! --OrdinaryJosh (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone is going to be bothered by requests for assistance with these templates. I've been editing since July 2021 and I don't understand them myself. It's not like there's 20 posts a day on this talk page, it's usually pretty quiet. It's a small group of editors here, but everyone is happy to answer questions in my experience. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@OrdinaryJosh: WT:RDT (the talk page for Wikipedia:Route diagram template) might be the best place to ask these questions. Useddenim (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks! —-OrdinaryJosh (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Following this discussion and much procrastination, I've finally gotten around to creating a dedicated article for freight trains. As this will change the target of a lot of links, I wanted to post a general heads' up here. Please feel free to improve it, it's just a start class article now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On the Infobox station template, there's a section called style template. How do I create my own/edit existing ones. Stations like Bordertown railway station don't have a style template, and it would be good if I could be able to add them. An example of a page with a style template for reference is Caulfield railway station. Thank you for your help. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143: Presumably you refer to Template:Infobox station#External style template. There are very few of these templates left - Caulfield railway station uses |style=Melbourne so in the past it would have pulled in {{Melbourne style}}, but that was deleted just over two years ago, following this TfD. Indeed, I just updated the doc to show one that wasn't deleted - and I had to hunt around for some time in order to find one (some are in Category:Rail transport style templates, but not all). With the introduction of the {{adjacent stations}} system, most have been deleted in the last two or three years so I really wouldn't try to create a new one, if you don't want to find it taken to WP:TFD in a few weeks time. If you really feel that a new style is necessary, it should be relevant to a whole system not to one specific station, and Template talk:Adjacent stations is the best place to ask for it to be implemented. Give as much information as you can - including why the default style is unsatisfactory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I probably won't go ahead right now and add style templates to these infoboxes as I have some other projects to work on, however, I will consider it in the future and will reach out if I need any help then. If you'd like to, I have ~10 good article nominations waiting a review, and if you'd like to I would highly appreciate it if you could review one (or more) of these articles. You can view the list of my GA nominations needing reviews here. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything that Redrose64 said is correct, and I would be happy to assist. In general, an infobox style should match the branding of the system (and in particular the station signage). If those don't exist in a consistent way then a style may not be appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I probably won't go ahead right now and add style templates to these infoboxes as I have some other projects to work on, however, I will consider it in the future and will reach out if I need any help then. If you'd like to, I have ~10 good article nominations waiting a review, and if you'd like to I would highly appreciate it if you could review one (or more) of these articles. You can view the list of my GA nominations needing reviews here. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

I tag a lot of empty categories and looking over one that recently became empty led me to a new editor, User:HelpfulHens, who despite being a new editor, is making a lot of content changes on railway articles, most specifically to Irish railways and railway museum articles. I know absolutely nothing about these subjects so I'm hoping some railway, or European railway, expert can check over this new editor's work and make sure these changes are improvements to articles or decide if these are changes that need to be reverted. Thanks, in advance, for any guidance you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am just trying to organise these pages.HelpfulHens (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: For info, HelpfulHens has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Which begs the question, should we revert the changes? I have no knowledge of Ireland Railways so don't know if his changes were constructive or not. BeckyAnne(talk) 17:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@BeckyAnne: - If the change was constructive, I'd say let it be. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There's an editor in some kind of editathon who has "referenced" a ton of railway articles with links to sites such as Rome2Rio. I personally don't think this is a good type of source since it's partially a vendor where tickets can be bought as a third party but I haven't seen an explicit statement in my searching on this one way or another. Does WP Trains have a take on this? If it's allowed, great and I have a bunch of articles to reference easily, and if not I have a lot of rollbacking to do. Thanks for any help! Kazamzam (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say that Rome2Rio is not a the best source and there is always a better source that can be used. Steelkamp (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Rail transport in Victoria has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, I translated an article about the Belgish bilevel carM7. As I am not a Native speaker I would be pleased if someone who is familiar with the technical terms and idiomatic language checked the article shortly. For example I am not sure whether to write car or coach. Greets from Germany E235JREMU (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As for car or coach, it technically probably is both. A coach is type of car the passengers ride. But a coach is also a railroad car, but not all railroad cars are coaches. I hope that explained it a bit. BeckyAnne(talk) 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you E235JREMU (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

Would it be possible to create a template/module that would pull and populate ridership figures for a given station/line/system that were stored in a subpage for a system? {{Infobox station}} has parameters for passengers, pass_rank, pass_percent, etc. that are currently being updated station by station. Having a single page to update that covers a system seems like a much easier method for storing and updating this information.

I don't have the skill to create such a system or the time to learn how to, but I was wondering if anyone who does would be interested and/or have thoughts on the idea. Lost on  Belmont  ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A few already exist: I made {{BART ridership}}, and User:RickyCourtney has done great work implementing {{Amtrak ridership}}. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lost on Belmont see Template:American transit ridership that may have some that will help! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we identify the loco in this drawing, dated 1 June 1870, or its artist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The style appears British (2-2-2, outside plate frames, inside cylinders, but the headlamp at the top of the smokebox is not a feature of locomotives built for use in Britain. A lot of British loco manufacturers built for export, though. Probably not a tropical country, since there is not even a sunshade for the crew.

I don't think that it was drawn in the manufacturer's drawing office, since there is no representation of a works plate. It's likely to have been drawn either for an "Invitation to Tender" in order to depict the locomotives desired by the railway, or to provide a final specification for the chosen manufacturer. Whichever of these two it is, the drawing will perhaps have been produced by the customer railway's own drawing office, or by a consulting engineer contracted to them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just created Time interval working as a redirect to Railway signalling#History of block signalling as I was very surprised to find it didn't already exist. However, the system is only very briefly described there and apparently not at all in the linked main article Signalling block systems, so I'm wondering if there is a better place to target? Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There's an equally brief description in UK railway signalling#Early days. Certes (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be a poorer target, especially as there are (briefer) mentions in the context of Australian and Italian railways. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Both have their faults; for instance, the one at Railway signalling mentions stopwatches, but I've never come across this in sources - the impression that I get is that the time interval was measured using the station clock. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a note to interested editors that a few dozen untranscluded route diagram templates (RDTs) have been nominated for deletion (not by me!) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. A few editors who follow this talk page have been working on a long list of these unused RDTs since I posted a note about them on this page a year ago, and they have made significant progress. If those editors need more time than the normal one-week TFD discussion allows, feel free to post a note to that effect on the TFD page. I have contacted the nominating editor to ask them to hold off on new nominations of RDTs until this project has had time to evaluate the existing TFDs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

All the nominations I added are done. I have also added a lot of them to the respective and necessary articles as these ones were unused but are now making good use. I won't take it personally if any of these are kept. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the appropriate short description for Marshfield station at Talk:Marshfield station which would affect several articles on the mass transit system of Chicago and other pages. Members of this project are invited to consider the implications and provide input. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to work on User:PhotographyEdits/TODO#Eschede diagram draft. This is a diagram that shows the train ride during a disaster. I copied it from Bad Aibling rail accident.

My question is: should it include the stations nearby the accident, or the whole route the train took? Because it is an ICE, it does skip train station on its route. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that it should include the stations either side of the accident location, the last and next stations it was scheduled to call at, other stations it called at on the portion of the route shown and any others that are contextually important (i.e. more than just passing mentions). Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick question: is it convention to organise information on a country's rolling stock by its operating railway/train companies, and information about infrastructure in rail transport in country X articles? Because that seems to make sense: usually the rail network is publicly owned, but the rolling stock is owned by the railway/train company (which may be a private, semi-public or public company). Case in point: Rail transport in Ukraine is very much focused on the infrastructure, going back to the construction of railways in modern Ukraine while it was part of the Russian Empire in the 19th century, but also has a rolling stock section. On the other hand, since 2016 all regional train companies have merges into the nationalised Ukrainian Railways (Ukrzaliznitsya) company (and thus became almost the only train operator in Ukraine, apparently also responsible for maintenance and construction of rail infrastructure); it also has an infrastructure section. This leads to WP:OVERLAP. I'd like to know what is conventional to do in such cases before I make my own (perhaps arbitrary?) WP:BOLD decisions to move all rolling stock information to Ukrainian Railways and all infrastructure information to Rail transport in Ukraine. It seems to me a practical solution to solving the overlap. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for non north America, but in US & Canada both the rail and rolling stock are owned by private companies. Even Amtrak is a private company, granted a charter and subsidized company.

As for Ukraine articles, I see no reason why you can't do what you proposed. BeckyAnne(talk) 10:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's true in North America that most infrastructure is privately owned, but there are a fair number of states (and a few cities) that have directly purchased rail lines, be it to save them from abandonment, convert them to rail-trails, or to facilitate increased passenger service. Connecticut is one state that directly owns a decent number of its rail lines through its DOT and leases them out to private operators, and North Carolina owns all the shares of the North Carolina Railroad, though it's nominally private. A number of state Departments of Transportation also directly own rolling stock, such as in Connecticut (CT Rail), New Jersey (NJ Transit), and North Carolina (the Piedmont). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers, both of you! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: I found some more information. Ukraine has been discussing a new railroad law since at least June 2015. (looks like by 2019 it was still not passed). The bottom line is that the infrastructure will remain publicly owned, but it can be used by private train companies as well in order to make the train market competitive, even though in practice Ukrzaliznytsia (which is to become a public joint-stock company) still has a monopoly as long as the law is not passed. We can expect the difference between the two articles to grow over time as the train market is liberalised. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely keep rolling stock and infrastructure as two separate categories, and be clear on the definition of the summary stats. In the US, railroads own rolling stock, but can also have long- or short-term leases of rolling stock from other companies. Creating a "gray area", one of the largest leasing companies for freight cars is TTX Company, which is owned by multiple railroads. Shippers can also own rolling stock. For infrastructure, railroads usually own their own infrastructure, but can have agreements with other railroads (operating rights) to operate over the other railroad's line with any conditions listed in the agreement. For U.S. Class I railroads (the largest railroads, subject to more regulation), statistics often include miles of track operated and miles of track owned. This makes two railroad industry summary stats in the United States somewhat strange: 1) total number of freight cars should be larger than the sum of the freight cars owned by the railroads (because of the leasing companies and shippers); and 2) total track is less than the sum of railroad track operated by railroads (because of the overlap track from trackage rights). TwoScars (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Good evening. I would like to ask if it is technically possible to introduce templates with the numbering of Polish railway lines on the English language Wikipedia? I'm talking about this exemplary pattern: KujKuń (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes; the preference on the English Wikipedia is to use Module:Adjacent stations for this. I believe some work has been done with Polish lines already: Module:Adjacent stations/Polish State Railways. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an option for lines. The module Adjacent stations presents much less classes of trains than railway lines. KujKuń (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this today Baltimore and Ohio Railroad EL-5 class and noticed a lack of citations and sources. I am not enough of a B&O fan to know much about these engines (other than that Don Strack's UtahRails website claims a lineage between them the Utah Railway 2-8-8-0's and the UP MC series locomotives)... but this article definitely needs help with reliable citations. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, everyone! My apologies for not doing this on Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template, but it seems that that page is inactive, unfortunately. I just wanted to ask if anyone here would be willing to review and potentially improve upon the BSicon templates for the various Los Angeles Metro Rail related articles by any chance? Thank you so much! --OrdinaryJosh (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chatswood railway station#Requested move 22 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate it if someone experienced with Wikipedia:Route diagram template could update Template:Port Washington Branch to reflect full service to Grand Central. I was able to update most of the other branches myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the more sophisticated formatting for the junctions in this one. Thanks! ^Complex/_Rational 03:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Please chime in in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_1#Category:Underground_railways. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated Edgar Speyer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Kentucky Railway Museum has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm developing List of preserved locomotives, organized by location where the locomotives are preserved, e.g. location of the museum they're in, or where it was last known they were located. This work follows on from recent AFD which sought to delete entire List of locomotives (which covers famous no-longer-extant locomotives too, and which used to mix individual notable locomotives and also locomotive classes).

I do believe strongly that lists of historic things that are preserved (like are museums or are in museums) are best organized by location (continent, nation, state or province). See List of museum ships and its sublists, which was recently organized that way. There are corresponding categories such as Category:Museum ships in New York (state) which matches to section List of museum ships in New York.

For locomotives, the existing category structure doesn't correspond to organization this way. I want to have a big CFD to change "of" to "in" for Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Pennsylvania to Category:Preserved steam locomotives in Pennsylvania, etc. But I worry based on previous experience there may be strong feelings about the importance of "of" vs. "in" in categorizing. Note, I do think it is fine for there to be categories by manufacturer (which I think pretty much makes the distinction sought by many categorizors to recognize so many things which came from the United Kingdom, for example, so Category:Preserved locomotives of the United Kingdom would not so much be needed anymore).

All locomotives included in the categories would have to be checked, in implementation, but I am revisiting all anyhow as I develop the list-articles. E.g. a Baldwin Locomotive Works manufactured locomotive's category may be changed from "of Pennsylvania" to "in California" or wherever it is actually existing in a heritage railway, say (though it will always remain in the BLW category for its class).

I'd like to get feedback: would changing this system over be okay? Any advice?

And, see works in progress (and feel free to help develop):

• List of preserved locomotives in the United States, broken out from List of locomotives
• List of preserved locomotives in Canada, broken out from List of locomotives

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 15:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

James Hood Wright has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have started a RFC at WP:VPP asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm posting here as this project would likely be among the most affected.Dave (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've created the 2023 Voorschoten train crash article following the accident overnight. If there are any members of this WP in the Leiden / Den Haag area that are able to get photographs for use in the article, it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we have identification of the class of locomotive hauling the freight train involved in the accident please? Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it one of these? Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Comparing to this image from the nos.nl page linked above, they do look similar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, series 189 is correct. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Now identified as 189-054. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The area is enclosed, and there is no traffic. I was supposed to travel to the airport tomorrow, normally passing the site, but it is not possible anymore, I will take another route via Rotterdam. It is probably easier to ask Wikimedia Nederland, may be they can get some photos released. Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I also posted at WT:NL, but it seems there isn't a WP:NL on nl-wiki. We do have some photos of the scene now, thanks to Vysotsky. Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I will add two more photo this evening, taken with a different camera yesterday and this morning. The DB train was already partly moved this morning, and the photo I made yesterday isn't very good, but something is better than nothing, I guess. Vysotsky (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a train expert, but just found this List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment. It's mostly unsourced and looks like synth for me, maybe more experienced editors have any thoughts? Should such list exist? Is it an encyclopedic topic that can be sourced? Artem.G (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

That absolutely looks like SYNTH and something that should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback and/or implementation is appreciated at this edit request. Izno (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bangkok railway station#Requested move 10 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

NS 1065 is a General Electric Dash 9-44CW locomotive owned by Norfolk Southern Railway, one of the largest freight railroads in the United States. The locomotive was manufactured in 1999 and was originally painted in Norfolk Southern's standard livery of black, white, and red. However, in 2012, Norfolk Southern decided to honor the history of one of its predecessor railroads, the Savannah and Atlanta Railway, by repainting one of its locomotives in the classic green and yellow colors of the historic railroad.

The Savannah and Atlanta Railway was formed in 1917 as a merger of several smaller railroads in Georgia and South Carolina. The railroad operated a network of over 500 miles of track, primarily serving agricultural and industrial customers in the region. In 1963, the Savannah and Atlanta Railway was acquired by Southern Railway, which later merged with Norfolk and Western Railway to form Norfolk Southern in 1982.

To commemorate the history of the Savannah and Atlanta Railway, Norfolk Southern selected NS 1065 to be repainted in the classic green and yellow colors of the historic railroad. The locomotive was sent to the Juniata Locomotive Shop in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where it was repainted over the course of several weeks. The shop workers carefully applied the green and yellow paint scheme to the locomotive's exterior, along with the "SA" initials and the words "Savannah & Atlanta" on the sides of the hood.

NS 1065 was unveiled to the public in June 2012, and it quickly became a popular sight on Norfolk Southern's rail network. The locomotive has been used to pull a variety of freight trains, including intermodal and coal trains, and has been used for special events such as railfan excursions and employee appreciation events. In addition, the locomotive has been featured in several railroad enthusiast publications and websites, and it has become a favorite among railfans and Norfolk Southern employees alike. TitanicSankUnderWater (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There's about a 99.9% chance that this locomotive is not notable enough for a dedicated Wikipedia article. None of the NS heritage units are. A small section in Norfolk Southern Railway noting the existence of the program and a brief overview would be appropriate, and a brief mention at Savannah and Atlanta Railway (which is already present, actually), but that's about it. Generally it's a tall order for individual diesel locomotives to be notable, about the only one I can think of is Union Pacific 6936. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locomotive classes. Editors are invited to express their opinions. Hoekiema (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Railroad 4876 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User User:Mac KFRC had edited the page of singer-songwriter Harry McClintock (famous for writing "The Big Rock Candy Mountain") with a list of railroads the man had worked on during his time as a traveling "boomer" before his musical career took off in January 2023. Then the user went and added that "information" to the following railroad pages to note that Harry McClintock was the most "famous employee" of the following lines.

Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway

Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad

Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad

Oregon Short Line Railroad

Southern Pacific

Tooele Valley Railway

Union Pacific Railroad

Railway Express Agency

State Belt Railroad

I noticed this on the Tooele Valley page first, and began researching the claim. There were no sources for it on any of the pages that had received the edit, and I couldn't find any comprehensive list of his boomer career online. The only source that seemed like a possible lead was an October 1957 issue of Railroad Magazine, so I bought a copy of the issue and reading it the article in question is an obituary. The only railroad the obituary mentions he worked on at the start of his boomer days? The Pennsylvania Railroad, which wasn't even one of the railroads in the above list!

Obviously as a transient "boomer" worker, it is likely there are many loose claims of "McClintock worked here then went here" (and maybe some possibility they were true ) but until we can find any verifiable source that actually can back up his work history; these are unsourced edits being enacted en-masse on multiple pages which fall under the scope of WikiProjectTrains. Until we can find some more solid sources, I believe we should consider such unsourced edits claiming "McClintock worked HERE TOO!!!" to be page vandalism until something more solid than tall tale and hearsay can be cited. I would also consider requesting that McClintock due to his place in railroad history have his page be added to WikiProjectTrains for monitoring and protection as well. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You lay it out in detail, but it's pretty obvious reverting these edits was the right move. Thanks for bringing it to the project's attention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I only added Macs railroad jobs, that I had gathered over 50 years, after I looked into The SP CO. site on Wikipedia, and found this "Notable employees, Jimmie Rodgers (country singer), Father of Country Music, Singer-Songwriter" with no mention of Mac.

Pennsylvania Railroad = Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway.

My father retired from SP CO. after 45 years. Mac worked there. Mac KFRC (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there any members of this WP in Texas that are able to take photographs of the Martin Lake Line and upload them to Commons please? By doing this, we may be able to verify the line is no longer electrified and answer a query at the help desk. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't necessary. We have a citation from Trains Magazine in 2012 that confirms the line was de-electrified, which has been added to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Troop sleeper has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Madhira railway station is in the hidden Category:Pages with script errors. That is due to the wikitext {{Maplink|frame=yes|plain=yes|frame-align=center|frame-width=300|frame-height=180|zoom=14|type=point|marker=rail}} which (if previewed after replacing the article with just this) gives "Lua error: Coordinates must be specified on Wikidata or in |coord=." Perhaps someone here would fix the Wikidata entry or add the coord parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq weirdly the coordinates were specified already, but the article wasn't connected to Wikidata at all. I fixed that, did a null edit, and it seems fine now. Mackensen (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been working on rebuilding the Flemington Racecourse railway line article. One request for help:

• The Flemington Racecourse article doesn't have an interactive map- can someone please create one and add it in?

An example of an interactive map is on the Cranbourne railway line article under the Route subheading. I need this request to be fulfilled so I can nominate the article for Good Article status and complete the project that I have been working on for the past ~6 ish months. Thanks in advance for all the help. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I have an example of one of these in my sandbox. The route is generally taken from OpenStreetMap data. Comprehensive instructions are at Template:Maplink. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

See also what I wrote at Wikipedia:Creating route maps from OpenStreetMap data. ɱ (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ɱ @Trainsandotherthings thanks for sending through the guides. I've tried on my sandbox (User:HoHo3143/sandbox) but it doesn't seem to be working even though the FR line shows up in open street Map and Wikidata has an entry. Not sure what to do. HoHo3143 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ɱ @Trainsandotherthings I've also realised there are two different Wikidata entries for the line. One named "Flemington Racecourse" and the other "Flemington Racecourse railway line". HoHo3143 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings @Ɱ I was finally able to figure it out by doing a lot more playing around. Huge pain in the ass but I got there eventually. Thanks both of you for the help and @Ɱ for that how to guide- very useful!

Discussion now closed. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

On the bright side, next time you need to make one it won't be nearly as difficult! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how we would go about this, but we really need to get on top of all the articles that treat operating practices, terminology, etc. that is specific to one country and/or time period as universal in nature. There are piles and piles of them. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If there are so many then surely you can give a few examples? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Glossary of rail transport terms for starters, it usually gives no indication of where and when a term was used. Positive train control was another good example, it treated a US-specific concept as universal until I mentioned it on the talk page and it got fixed. Really this is something that has to be in your mind when editing rail transport articles that aren't country-specific (or in some cases even when they are).--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry i'm writing here, but is there any page i could submit my routemaptemplate work for review and some opinions? I would be greatful for any answers! The work in question → Template talk:Warsaw central stations — Antoni12345 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a problem with one user repeatedly removing factual information from the break of gauge article in an attempt to feed some sort of political agenda. I've already opened a discussion at Talk:Break_of_gauge#Ukraine_(1520mm)_to_Poland_(4'_8.5") and warned the user on their talk page.

The break of gauge between Ukraine (1520mm) and Poland (4' 8.5") is posing an obstacle to the war effort and to the supply of foodstuffs from Ukraine to other nations; valid factual information was removed here and here, for instance. The information which the user is attempting to suppress, which is validly sourced and true, is this:

What Putin’s war has done is not only tried to wipe out the culture of the Ukrainians, decimate people, and commit innumerable war crimes, but is also — he’s also prevented the grain — thousands of tons of grain that are locked up in those silos, ready to be exported, but they can’t get out through the Black Sea because they’ll get blown out of the water. So we’re working on a plan to get it out through other countries by rail. But guess what? Ukraine has a system like Russia has — a rail gauge that is different than the gauge of the rest of the tracks in Europe. So we’re going to build silos — temporary silos — in the borders of Ukraine, including in Poland, so we can transfer it from those cars into those silos, into cars in Europe, and get it out to the ocean, and get it across the world. But it’s taking time.

The content needs to be restored to the article and the user in question needs to be blocked from editing this topic. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing here. User:66.102.87.40 is the one inserting a political agenda into a topic about railways. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding a giant blockquote with no other context is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Our signalling articles are a mess. To a man they are confusingly written, poorly sourced, and jumble together information from different locations and time periods. We have pages like Application of railway signals that just duplicate information found on other page.

The only way I can really see of fixing this is writing new pages for the signalling in each country, then seeing what common elements deserve separate articles. And these articles need to be written from scratch - they need an entirely new structure explaining the fundamental principles of operation (including multiple methods in cases like the UK where more than one basic system is used), then go into more detail on things like aspects.

If there's any other suggestions I'd like to hear them. I feel improving the signalling articles is very important because most other resources online, even those written by people who work in signalling professionally, tend to be very badly written. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:New South Wales Xplorer#Requested move 12 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I ran across List of White Pass and Yukon Route locomotives and cars while doing citation repair. This isn't my area, but this article could use eyes. The topic is cognizable, but the existing article is far, far too long and is full of original (if well-attributed) research. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Holy shit. I'm sorry, but as someone who prides himself on removing OR, this is just insane. It needs to be blown up and started over, I am not about to spend hours sorting through what's OR and what is keepable. What's here now violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the extreme. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This feels like something that should be preserved somewhere, even if it's too much for Wikipedia. Trains and Locomotives on Fandom, maybe? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That, or a personal website somewhere. It's interesting, and I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but it can't be kept on Wikipedia in its current form. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but they've been working on the page since possibly 2009, if they're the anon, or 2010. Let's give them the courtesy of kindly describing what the problem is (which will presumably be new to them after 13+ years of work) and letting them figure out where to move it before deleting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Omg, and I thought the occasional railfan/enthusiast original research edits on Sydney Trains rolling stock was bad. This is on another level... I have to say, this Buffalo guy, this guy has to be well trained in writing and research, it’s actually good, it’s just it completely violates Wikipedia’s purpose. Fork99 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a dilemma in articles of Indian Railways. So, there was an EMU train formerly known as Train 18, this train was developed in India. This train was renamed as Vande Bharat Express and so was the service. The problem here is both the names for the EMU train as well as the service are named the same. Unlike Shinkansen where you have a specific name for a service while the EMU train has its own dedicated article.

This keeps getting weirder. There's a long distance sleeper version of this train being designed, there's also a short distance regional service being designed. Where does all of this go? A dedicated article on services? An article about the train itself? Or mushed up together just like Vande Bharat Express article?

Footy2000 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See Acela and Acela Express (trainset) (the latter of which should be renamed to Acela (trainset). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

A similar message was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Passenger trains task force#It's a train? It's a service? It's both?. Per WP:MULTI, it's best to discuss in one place, i.e. here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Many Shinkansen EMUs tend to operate on more than one service. That being said, I'd prefer it if the trainset and train service were separate articles, as it would offer more flexibility if trainsets end up being deployed on other services. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. It's a good idea to add (trainset) to differentiate the trainset from the service articles. I did this for RapidX as well as RapidX (trainset) and now it makes more sense and it is useful for the reader. Footy2000 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We have something similar with Victoria, Australia, with services that are also physical rail lines. About half the metropolitan services run the full length of the line, these articles have been written with the service as the main focus and have an expanded section to cover the physical line (unlike the other services that only have a brief section on the physical line with a link to the page about the line itself) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about Trains (magazine) that may be of interest to project participants. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone know of a Wikipedia-worthy map of the U.S. railroad system in 1840 or 1850? TwoScars (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

From a brief look through Commons, I spy some good early 1850s maps:

• File:1853 Map of all the railroads in the United States in operation and progress, by David McLellan, American Rail Road Journal, from the Digital Commonwealth - commonwealth cj82kp03g.jpg
• File:1852 Andrews Railroad Map of the United States - Geographicus - UnitedStates-andrews-1852.jpg
• File:1851 Skeleton map of rail-roads between Cape Canso and St. Louis, by Ellis Sylvester Chesbrough, from the Digital Commonwealth - commonwealth wd376294q.jpg

I don't see any great ones exactly on 1840 or 1950. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox station#Move map, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Eurostar has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge disgusting mess that needs to be sorted regarding cardinal direction + railway/railroad disambiguation pages. Please see the discussion at the WikiProject Disambiguation page. The general gist is that there are overlapping dab pages for things like Northern Railway and Northern Railroad plus more really fun things to wrap your head around (totally). Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

What's the best page organisation for stations called Woodlands? Woodlands stationWoodlands station redirects to Woodlands MRT station in Singapore. Woodlands railway station was in Ireland, and there was also a Woodlands railway station, Singapore. Woodlands train station is a dab. Obviously, all are or were stations called Woodlands on a railway with trains, so the titles are to some extent interchangeable. The MRT station is probably a primary topic for at least some of the terms. Certes (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably the ambiguous names Woodlands railway station and Woodlands station should be redirected to the dab at Woodlands train station, and follow the relevant Irish WikiProject convention for disambiguating railway station names for the former Irish station. All the other names seem unambiguous enough. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of how Ireland disambiguates their railway stations, as I’m based in Australia. Fork99 (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If the Irish station needs a qualifier then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations) seems to suggest Woodlands railway station (Ireland), like the nearby Glenbrook railway station (Ireland). Certes (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve moved the Irish station to the new name, whilst fixing broken links behind as I changed the redirect target to the dab page.

As a side note, there’s also Woodland railway station (not plural), so I’ve left links between the relevant Woodlands and Woodland dab pages in the “see also” section. Maybe we could take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, if you think they should merge them or do something else other than my basically band-aid fixes. Fork99 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Pioneer Zephyr for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Pennsylvania Station (Newark) be moved to Newark Penn Station, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Tried looking through the archives, but could only find info about station name conventions. Anyways, is there a convention for which operator’s name is put with the rolling stock name, if it it’s still in service/operation? It seems to be very inconsistent. Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink all use the current operator, regardless of whether it was introduced by a predecessor or not, e.g. Sydney Trains T set. Whereas Transwa who currently operate the Westrail ADP/ADQ class and the Transwa WDA/WDB/WDC class (edited; Fork99 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)). And then, Melbourne does its own thing, no operator at all for Metro Trains Melbourne, but the first operator for V/Line??? Ridiculous honestly. Honestly in this day and age I personally think that for anything that runs at the present moment should have its current operator’s name. We can talk about historic fleets though another time, that’s a whole other can of worms. Fork99 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport - NotOrrio, ThylacineHunter, Steelkamp, JML1148, HoHo3143, Purin475. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m ok with Melbourne (and by extension Adelaide; for their suburban trains), lacking the operator name though because the operator’s name has changed so much over the years, but the V/Line thing is super weird. No idea why South East Queensland’s EMUs (e.g. Interurban multiple unit) lack the operator’s name either. Oh, and then since Transperth is an established brand, all of WA’s EMU trains have Transperth in their name. Hoorayyyy for consistency! Fork99 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Democfest. Fork99 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've always held the opinion that using operator names (especially ones without much of an established legacy or aren't insantly recognisable) isn't always the greatest option. Some are better than others obviously, and there are exceptions to this opinion. Using "London Underground" as a prefix for example, works very very well and is almost a no-brainer given how iconic, unchanged and instantly associated the name is with the system and its rolling stock. As with most things however, it's not a one size fits all situation. Using "NSW TrainLink" before every rolling stock class has always struck me as being very clunky and weird. The operator isn't even easily recognisable within Australia, let alone from an international perspective, and it's not like the name rolls off the tongue well. How does an outsider even pronounce it? "En-es-double u train link"? That's quite a mouthful. Even worse, imagine doing this for Melbourne's trains. "Metro Trains Melbourne X'Trapolis for example? "Metro Trains Melbourne HCMT"? Yuck. Too much. I envy that the British pages have a universal prefix that they can apply to ALL of their rolling stock regardless of operator or history - "British Rail" (London Underground excepted). Clean, easy to say, instantly associated with the place of operation.

The best thing I can suggest for NSW is using "New South Wales" as a prefix for every rolling stock class, much like we already do for the historic trains. "Sydney Trains" is not terrible, but not the best either. Democfest (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

See, the "New South Wales" prefix strikes me as even more clunky because it gives no context as to what the thing actually is. New South Wales Xplorer could be a tourism initiative, for example. At least "NSW TrainLink" has a descriptive association (and using the first operator, CountryLink in this case, spares having to rename everything the next time somebody in Sydney feels like rebranding). XAM2175 ^(T) 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I second @XAM2175’s opinion about New South Wales Xplorer. It doesn’t give any clue whatsoever that the object we’re talking about is a bloody train out of all things. Fork99 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the XPTs introduced by SRA? Now imagine State Rail Authority XPT or even better State Rail Authority of New South Wales XPT, what a nightmare. Fork99 (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Most existing conventions along these lines, as you'll have noticed, are arranged at state or system levels and have more-or-less developed organically over time. I personally value consistency too, but within reason, and with regard for both practical matters and the policy outlined at WP:CRITERIA which holds that consistency should be one element of naming and not necessarily the most important. Indeed, in my experience, that wider Wikipedia community seems often to favour all of the other criteria more highly. Concision, for example, is how you end up with some of QR's suburban units having the titles they do; Interurban multiple unit happens to be sufficiently unique as to not require any disambiguation. Electric multiple unit and InterCity Express, however, are not – hence for precision they're suffixed with "(Queensland Rail)"

As it happens, I've been in the game here long enough that I have some vague recollection of agreeing with the "name of ordering operator" convention for Victorian stock, and in fact I still believe it to be a useful compromise. On the other hand, I vigorously oppose the utter nightmare that using the current operator's name would be. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

LOL I see that just like how the railways developed state by state in the colonial days, here we are doing the same on Wikipedia :P Fork99 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve got a novel idea, what if, we used brackets after each name of train, e.g. Waratah A set (Sydney Trains). I haven’t thought much about this, doesn’t really solve the problem at hand, but it might look more readable? I just want to start a discussion, that’s all. Fork99 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But the main thing is, when we put the operator’s name, it’s to disambiguate from other same named trains (while also stating where the train is used), but for some trains such as Sydney Trains B set, there are no other B set trains around the world, not that I’m aware of anyways. I can’t find the exact policy, but there’s no need to disambiguate when there’s nothing ambiguous, right? My god this is a nightmare. Fork99 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is the constant "battle" between concision and consistency and you'll see it repeated again and again across many areas of Wikipedia. Sometimes the choice is easy but other times all of them have problems and reaching consensus turns out to be a very hard slog. Sadly I don't have all the answers; only opinions 😛 XAM2175 ^(T) 17:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fork99: The term "B set" is not unambiguous. In the UK, the Great Western Railway operated what they called 'B' sets, which according to

• Harris, Michael (1985) [1966]. Great Western Coaches from 1890 (3rd ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles. pp. 78, 82, 90, 109. ISBN 0-7153-8050-8.

were close-coupled non-corridor brake composite coaches in permanently formed pairs intended for use on branch lines and local services outside the London and Birmingham areas. One, two or more of these 'B' sets (presumably the B stood for Branch) would form a train. They were introduced in the early 1920s, the last were built in 1954 and they were withdrawn between 1958 and 1962. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If we aer to use the current operator, then we will end up with things like Steamrail A2 class & Steamrail Y class, instead of Victorian Railways A2 class & Victorian Railways Y class, and what happens when there are 2 operators? (do we split V/Line P class into V/Line P class, SSR P class & Seymour Rail Heritage Centre P class?) --ThylacineHunter (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As for why not on the EMU's and DMU's, the operator is only added to the locomotives and carriages classes that are identified only by letters to help with disambiguations.

95% of Victoria comes under Victorian Railways, 1 is VicRail (the rebranded name of the Victorian Railways), the almost all the rest are V/Line (excepting the rebuilt XR & XRB classes and the VL class), or the very early private companies unclassed locos. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said at the top, I'm only considering the name of trains currently in service, not any that are historic or in preservation. Fork99 (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, missed that bit. But still, how would it work for the P class, which are still in service with both V/Line and SSR (as are a few of the other Victorian diesel locomotives)? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter: Let’s just stick to discussing multiple unit trains; keep the current naming convention for locomotives and unpowered carriages as yes, you’re right that certain members of those can sometimes split off from the rest. Multiple units either tend to stay together under one operator like a family, or die together as a family under one operator. I’ve not really ever heard of Sydney Trains selling one just Waratah elsewhere, you know what I mean? Fork99 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you say not historic or in preservation... With the current withdrawal of N carriages, if the N carriagers are changed to V/Line, do we change it back when all are withdrawn? Should things be kept as the last operator when in service? (this would mean S, Z even the wooden E carriages should all change from Victorian Railways to V/Line) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought I just said let’s keep the current convention for locomotives and carriages. Fork99 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I had already typed it before I saw your comment. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a very good, well overdue discussion and i've been giving it a good think. I've come up with something relatively dramatic that would ditch the whole status quo of operator names, and instead use an original, unofficial (but i reckon very logical) naming scheme that could be consistently applied to ALL city-specific train fleets (Metro Trains Melbourne, Sydney Trains, Queensland Rail, Adelaide Metro, Transperth). What do we think of using "*city-suburban-*train name"? So for Sydney, it would be "Sydney suburban T set" for example, for Melbourne it would be "Melbourne suburban X'Trapolis" , for Perth it would be "Perth suburban A series" and so on and so on. We could even add an unofficial suffix for Melbourne's fleet (class, set, stock for example) to instantly identify a train class as the subject of the page. I'm yet to come up with something for regional trains though.

But just a thought, i doubt it's the best option. Just something that could unify all Australian city rolling stock under a single naming convention. Democfest (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point in time, there is one inconsistency that really needs attention. Currently New South Wales Xplorer is inconsistent with New South Wales Hunter railcar and New South Wales Endeavour railcar, I personally do not care what it’s called, it just should be the same.

As for the other ones with operator’s names, there’s a whole new generation of people who were born in the 2000s. They will likely not be familiar with the VicRail, CountryLink, CityRail or Westrail branding, and even if say people born in the 1970s-1990s, the old names have been gone since the 1980s for VicRail, about two decades for Westrail and almost a decade for CountryLink/CityRail. I think a decade is more than enough time for people to adjust to the current branding. WP:CRITERIA states:

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Fork99 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy for VicRail to be changed to Victorian Railways as VicRail was just their trading name from 1974 to 1983. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As for WP:CRITERIA... The names of the Victorian EMU's and DMU's (apart from V/Line Sprinter & V/Line VLocity) are already using their recognisable names that readers are likely to look or search for (in Victoria the other 2 are just known as Sprinter & VLocity, but I believe they are so named as disambiguations) ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't we just use the name of the manufacturer? That's worked well for North American locomotives, at least.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't really work for locomotives where there were more than one manufacturer, e.g. the New South Wales C32 class locomotive would become the Baldwin / Beyer Peacock / Clyde / Eveleigh C32 class locomotive. As to getting a consistent naming method for all states, unlikely that a consensus could be achieved. Mumbialoy (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings I think where that came from is because typically North American models are ordered and run by multiple operators, whereas usually fleets are custom made for each operator here. There are exceptions of course, but yeah. As I said earlier, I'm just concerned with the naming of the passenger multiple units. Locomotive/carriage conventions are ok. Fork99 (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are any good solutions that allow for consistency between states. Generally, I think using the system branding is best, but that is problematic when you have a system that frequently changes its branding (such as Melbourne) or trains are shared between different systems (Sydney Trains vs NSW TrainLink). Using system branding works well in Perth, which has used Transperth since 1986, and Adelaide, which has used Adelaide Metro since 2000. I think the current naming scheme for Melbourne works well, completely forgoing the system name and just using the train names, which for the most part are sufficiently unique. Steelkamp (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Do the railways of Australia use a single centralised rolling stock database? In the UK, we have TOPS, which was set up by British Rail in the 1960s leading to a full reclassification and subsequent renumbering in the 1970s. These classes, in use for 55 years, are still a nationally-used identification system, meaning that we have articles titled e.g. British Rail Class 01 through to British Rail Class 950 even though British Rail, as an organisation, no longer exists. But it has left a massive legacy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a co-ordinating body, co-incidentally named Railways of Australia, and there is an effort underway to implement a single vehicle register for the whole country , but that's immaterial – what Australia doesn't have is a single national classification scheme.

I would also note that TOPS is not Great Britain's "single centralised rolling stock database" – it was in BR's time, yes, but that role is now filled by Network Rail's National Vehicle Register. Classes are allocated according to Rail Industry Standard RIS-2453-RST, which preserves most of the original TOPS schema but need not necessarily do so in the future. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, not really. Each state uses their own track gauge, and therefore has their own standards for rolling stock. The national standard gauge system isn’t even consistent, for example V/Line P class locomotives that are on standard gauge are allowed in VicTrack and ARTC territory, but not in Sydney Trains territory. Each track infrastructure manager classifies rolling stock differently. Example for ARTC: , example for VicTrack: , example for Sydney Trains: , example for UGL Regional Linx: . I believe all of the other track managers (such as Metro Trains Melbourne, Aurizon, Queensland Rail, Arc Infrastructure, TasRail) keep their documents internal, and are not publicly accessible. Fork99 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

On a side note, different states even have different rules regarding when or if required to blow the horn/whistle, different signalling/safeworking procedures and even different labour regulations. Fork99 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I recall someone saying that in the past, a broad gauge Melbourne train couldn’t even radio the standard gauge freight train right next to it because of inconsistent radio standards. But that has slowly been rectified with the introduction of the ICE radio system.

Though I do want to raise something, if a state run organisation merely undergoes a rebranding such as from Victorian Railways to VicRail, it’s not exactly a restructuring of the business, so I make the argument that the original operator is still Victorian Railways even if a particular train was introduced under VicRail. Fork99 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

All of the above is perfect example of why the potential Australian Transport project is a viable and necessary point for this discussion to go to - well discussed, beyond narrow scopes, and the very limiting areas of the discussions of the past.

It is intriguing to see the above suggestion that safety rules and practices are internal - my understanding is that documentation is required to be publicly available. https://www.onrsr.com.au/publications/rail-safety-national-law-related-legislation is a possible way into the rabbit hole of publicly available information.

The change of 'brands' is totally dependent upon the legislative background of the change, Western Australian Government railways is not the same as TransWa, in my opinion, and as a result services, and rolling stock do not 'carry over' in any way from the earlier name, as there were significant operational changes as well. I might be wrong, but then... JarrahTree 03:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant the rolling stock data and things like notices can sometimes be internal docs. I never said safety docs were always internal documents. Fork99 (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, good point - the extent to which safety docs can include information that is unexpected is worth checking out! JarrahTree 09:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fork99, your suggestion "Honestly in this day and age I personally think that for anything that runs at the present moment should have its current operator’s name.", would then go against WP:COMMONNAME, and as you have told me "policy is policy". -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I though we had an RfC at some point and the conclusion was that layout templates such as this one should not be in the articles, but I can not find it, and I also see that we have a lot of these templates in use, including quality content. Do I have a memory aberration? Thanks for helping. Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

See #Platform layouts, again: June 2023 above. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I see however e.g. {{NYCS Platform Layout IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line/local/3 tracks}} which is in use in a good article. Should it be nominated for deletion, or is there some subtle difference I do not see at the moment? Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the templates like that from the articles they are used on citing the June discussion, and if the removal sticks then nominate the template for deletion as unused and per the June discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Now, after this revert I am not sure how I can proceed. Probably I just give up. Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the next step is a formal RFC about the use of tabular station/platform layout information in articles about railway stations, whether it is transcluded or directly. We need some simple, and ideally concise, form of wording that encompasses those we've repeatedly agreed we don't wont but excludes RDT-style diagrams (which do not present the same issues), and I've very much not good at crafting that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Naples Metro stations were all with titles like: Università (Naples Metro). I thought the title X station was a standard compared to the X (Y Metro), so I moved the page to Università station, but a user pointed out to me that the patterns are by country and sometimes even by city. So I am asking here what the Italian model is, if I have to revert my edits or if they are correct. Thanks Yeagvr (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That kind of preemptive parenthetical disambiguation is out, so don't reverse yourself. There was a short discussion about European naming conventions in 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Naming convention for stations in Europe; see also User talk:Mackensen/Naming conventions (railway stations in Europe). The "correct" answer for Naples and other Italian cities is probably "X metro station" or simply "X station". A broader discussion isn't amiss and we can have it now. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I've been able to find there is no page detailing agreed naming conventions for Italian stations, but looking at Category:Metro stations in Italy everywhere except Cantania (x metro station, e.g. Borgo metro station)) and now Naples uses x (city Metro) (e.g. Brin (Genoa Metro)), so I would regard that as the de facto convention and discussion should be undertaken before moving articles away from that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: deprecation of BS-map , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I've recently joined as a new editor and stumbled upon the Ouigo article as needing some improvement. I've made a few minor edits to SPG/CE (would appreciate someone reviewing them for tone), and noticed at the bottom of the article in Reception that one Union head describes it as a 'high speed network for the poor'. I speak some french, and I think what's being said (the provided source links to a video interview) would be better translated as 'For everyone (Within the context of being more affordable)', but I'm concerned I'd either be falling into an OR trap or misinterpreting what's actually said (Because it's french faster than I can handle).

I'd appreciate someone taking a look at the article and helping with some of the fixes. Even better if you speak french well enough to verify/translate what's being said. PenguinPhone (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Carolina Central Railroad regarding the title of the article which may be of interest to members of this project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to draw the WikiProject's attention to edits over the last week or so by Danielsltt (talk · contribs), who has created the following six templates:

• Template:Stockholm metro T-centralen Platform Layout - used in T-Centralen
• Template:Stockholm metro Fridhemsplan Platform Layout - used in Fridhemsplan metro station
• Template:Copenhagen Metro Kongens Nytorv Platform Layout - used in Kongens Nytorv station
• Template:London Underground Baker Street Platform Layout - used in Baker Street tube station
• Template:London Underground King's Cross St Pancras Platform Layout - used in King's Cross St Pancras tube station
• Template:London Underground Barbican Platform Layout - used in Barbican tube station

Each of these has a single transclusion, shown above, and I cannot see any potential for use elsewhere, which defeats the idea of a template. Given previous discussions on this page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2021#Month-old problematic edits, is it time to discuss yet again the topic of platform layout diagrams in station articles, or should we simply send all of them to WP:TFD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this particular style of tabular diagram should be discouraged. They're difficult to maintain and often have accessibility problems (use of color, organization of information). Discussing the layout in prose takes less space and is clearer overall. In the case of Barbican, the whole thing could be rendered as: "Barbican has two side platforms and two tracks." Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2020 RfC was fairly thorough, and there was clear support for removing the tabular station layouts altogether. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Mackensen. This type of diagram doesn't add much to the encyclopedia and I don't think the platform layout is what anybody is looking to find when they read an article about a station. Plus, it's not even that clear that it's meant to be a diagram, simply being text with boxes round part of it. They can all be deleted as far as I'm concerned, so go get some TfD consensus. Rcsprinter123 (quip) 23:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Trying to be as polite as possible, but those diagrams are terrible. They convey nothing of the actual layout (especially King's Cross, which I used frequently for a couple of years on a client assignment). They should not appear in articles. As for them being templates, no I don't see the point of single-use anything being in a template. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the use of coloured text completely breaks MOS:CONTRAST / MOS:ACCESSIBILITY for people with visual acuity issues. And I have no idea how a blind person's screen reader would interpret the whole thing. I'm removing the UK tube ones now from articles based on the emerging consensus here. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that these diagrams are bad. They are hard to understand and I've never been able to understand them, I can't imagine non-editors would be able to understand them. There is a reason I've never used them in articles I've written. Steelkamp (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

These are completely at odds with the Manual of Style which says that, not only should tables not be used when prose would be clearer, but also that they should not be used to force the position of text or visual elements. I sampled Template:London Underground Barbican Platform Layout. Screen reading software doesn't understand the Underground symbol as a bullet, so it reads the list of line names as if they are a single sentence. It then reads the second side platform name at the end whereas it should really be a title the top of the list for the lines on that track. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Immediately afrer starting this thread, I left a note on the creator's talk page, to which they posted this response, subsequently blanking the page (which is permitted). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, the age-old taking your toys and leaving the sandbox. I too agree these diagrams are pointless and ought to be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think they should all be sent to TfD, no questions asked. Others have clearly highlighted their issues and I feel they far outweigh the advantages. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 10:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done just now. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth undoing all that then re-nominating with {{Tfd2}} 10mmsocket (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ignore. I'm boldly doing it.... 10mmsocket (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Group TfD here – Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_10#Platform_Layout_templates - thanks Mattdaviesfsic 10mmsocket (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Years ago these types of diagrams were added to most of the station articles in the Northeast United States. See for example Hackettstown station or Pennsylvania Station (Newark). I think the tables should come out, without replacement, en masse. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I did a text search (insource:/border-top:solid 1px gray;/) and found 4,344 articles displaying information in this way. Almost all train and bus station articles, maybe a few airports. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Last year the templats I found of this type I grouped under Category:Station platform templates. If there are any missed, they should be added to there until deleted so they won't be missed. Gonnym (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Picking this back up, I've removed the table from North Philadelphia station and I'm planning to do the same for other articles in the Northeast US. Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just nominated Template:Newark Penn Station Platform Layout for deletion based on this discussion and it being unused. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There appear to be at least 100 templates of this kind. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Received request to merge the Reversing gear article with the Johnson Bar (locomotive) article in July 2023. Reason: All of the material of the Johnson Bar page either duplicates material on the reversing gear page or could be easily included within it. --Eldomtom2. Discussion is >>>HERE<<<. Additional input is needed for flow of merge (Reversing gear → Johnson Bar (locomotive); or Johnson Bar (locomotive) → Reversing gear). Any comments appreciated. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Suseo Station be moved to Suseo station, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Suwon Station be moved to Suwon station, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Southern railway line to be moved to Southern railway line, Queensland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just looking at Abbots Ripton rail accident. This is painful for me to say, but although it's a lovely piece of research, in its current form it goes way beyond an encyclopaedia article. It looks, superficially, as though it's well-referenced, having 15 references and 19 notes in its "Notes and references" section, but in fact 13 of the references are all the same document (Tyler's accident report), and the other two are trivia: a reference concerning Thomas the Tank Engine and about one of the passengers. Much of the article is synthesis and research by whoever wrote it, their personal interpretation of Tyler's investigation, tempered with personal, unreferenced knowledge of the Great Northern system (for example the use of lower quadrant signals etc.). As an example of the extent of synthesis, here is a quote, Note 19, which is a discussion of the level of blame that the inquiry placed on one signalman:

"The evidence would clearly have supported mentioning the Abbots Ripton duty signalman as responsible. The Inquiry report instead considered it unfortunate that he had not retained his presence of mind, but immediately went on to note that he had attempted to speak to Huntingdon within a minute of the crash; the inference is that the inquiry did not think him blameworthy. In the 1881 UK census he (or an exact namesake) was still a Railway Signalman, but at Misterton, Nottinghamshire on a less important line; the Holme stationmaster (or an exact namesake) was stationmaster at Luton Hoo railway station, a minor station on a minor branch. The Wood Walton signalman was now a railway porter (possibly because he was now married); the Huntingdon South signalman was still a signalman in a main-line box and eventually became a station master."

When we reach a stage of consulting 19th century census information to track down what happened to people involved in an accident, and draw deductions about promotion based on marital status, we've gone way beyond an encyclopaedia. Whoever wrote this article should have published it in a magazine or book.

What are we supposed to do with articles like this? On the one hand, they're interesting to read. But on the other, they blatantly ignore Wikipedia's rules on synthesis, research, and referencing. Do we have a sister-project that's open to research and extended discussion like this? Elemimele (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We can lose that bit about what what signalmen did after accidents. The article, however, should remain: Abbott's Ripton was one of the significant British railway accidents of the 19th century - it brought about at least two changes in working practice: one nationally, one on the Great Northern Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Redrose64, I don't dispute for a moment that the article should remain, and I don't actually have a problem with it being sourced (almost) entirely to the accident report. My concern is that the whole thing is riddled with personal interpretation. To be honest, it's good personal interpretation. Realistically, to make the article Wikipedia-appropriate, about half of the text would get trimmed out, but before charging in with an axe, I wanted to see if there is any way we can save the work that's been put into this, by getting the speculative and OR/SYNTH text hosted somewhere more appropriate.

I also think it'd be really useful if more of the accident summaries were a bit more rigorous about indicating the consequences of the accidents for future working-practice. This article, for example, has a paragraph on consequences that cites not a single source, and lists two items as "Over a longer timescale, and after further accidents" (i.e., were they really documented outcomes of this accident). It's not clear to me, or a reader, whether what we're getting here is one guy's personal opinion, or something that's been properly documented by railway historians. Wikipedia readers have an absolute right to sourcing on things like this. Again, I don't want to trim it out without the railway community having a chance to put a citation in, because there are a lot of people out there with access to more books than me. But it needs to be sourced. There's too much urban-mythology about railway history without us adding to it. Elemimele (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I was shown this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:V%26T12GreatWesternSteamup2022.jpg of the V&T 12 Genoa, which is currently in use on three Wikipedia pages. However, I am concerned this is not a suitable photo to use for these articles. There is significant artifacts in the image from attempting to remove a person who was standing near the cab ahead of the tender. The tender lacks wheels because of this photoshop job in addition to the artifacts. I am struggling to find alternative photos though of Genoa that better illustrate the engine though on Wikimedia Commons, does anybody have some photos that can be used as an alternate? Or perhaps we could reach the photographer of the original photo to find an un-edited shot? Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I uploaded my own photos of #25, Genoa and J.W. Bowker after seeing they were all affected by the heavily artifact editing from the same photographer. But the photos of Reno and Dayton from the same photographer show similar issues and I do not have photos of my own to use. Does anybody have clear shots of those two locomotives to use in the articles? Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone will work out what is needed to fix recent problems in these articles ('Module:Adjacent stations/Montreux-Lenk im Simmental line'):

• Chamby railway station
• Montreux railway station
• Spiez railway station
• Zweisimmen railway station

Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I've fixed the Chamby article. Seems that a line rename is causing the issue. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, just a user differentiating between the company and the physical line, which isn't appropriate (and won't work) for the succession template. Mackensen (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Conflicting guidance with WikiProject:trains , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:International Railways connecting Italy has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's true there has been information all over the place about Rail Transport in Nepal. It's because the non existence of the right page they belong to, which is Rail Transport in Nepal, after realizing this I've put an effort to rebuild this once existing page. It's so inappropriate to redirect such a broad subject as Country's Rail Transportation to a Train operating company which runs only on one line. How can a country wide transport subject can be merged to a passenger service providing single company ? To fix this I tried to bring together all the scattered articles in wrong pages to the right page, first transferring railway transport related topics to Department of Railway's page as it's the authority in charge, then I found this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_by_country where Nepal's link is directed to all transportation page while other countries have a separated Rail Transportation page, some of which have no railway at all till date ? So it's hard to comprehend why Nepal Rail Transportation can't have it's page where all the history,current status and future project could be consisted ? As I was working towards it by moving all articles currently everywhere to the proper page, next day I come to take it further it's all gone ! Now have to start it all over again ! If it's going meet the same fate what's the point of trying to rebuild. But honestly, a country's Rail Transportation can't be in a company's page, it's like merging a country's entire river system into a boat service operator on one river. NeelAbodh (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions in category names. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Patna–Mughalsarai section#Requested move 19 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 06:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Middleton Junction and Oldham Branch Railway#Requested move 13 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 06:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI to this project: I have nominated about 15 unused and rarely used templates in the "BS" series for deletion. You can see the nominations at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Current discussions on August 13 and August 14. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A list of templates nominated, with links to the specific discussions, is available on the article alerts page (permalink). Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Borgenland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been gutting the various lists of rail accidents, even removing entries where there is a stand-alone article.

As I understand it, these lists are for covering accidents notable enough to sustain articles, but also for covering accidents which are not notable enough to sustain articles. Raising for discussion whether or not these lists should be gutted. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t recall wiping a stand-alone. What I did was to remove any incidents with no apparent sign of casualties or damage apart from the train itself plus deliberate attacks.. For example I removed entries whose only effect was a disruption of train schedules since I’d assume every single train wreck would have led at some point to a disruption. Borgenland (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you look closely at these logs, some of those entries pertained to “averted would-be accidents” Borgenland (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As such we have always been reminded by other editors that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every scratch on a vehicle and I made those edits based on those principles. Borgenland (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You will also see that I generally left accidents with dead people alone even if it involved a solo pedestrian, despite mine and other editors’ reservations over its notability Borgenland (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Other edits I made were simplifying words and removing excessive citations, euphemisms and unnecessary duplicate phrases Borgenland (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And some of them I had to revise because they were mere copy paste sentences from the newspaper (imagine reading the phrase “authorities said on Sunday” in an encyclopedia) Borgenland (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don’t want anymore problems with these pages then I suggest you admins in this project make a definite set of criteria over what items to include since I find that the standards keep jumping for every decade. Borgenland (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland: this edit removed a linked article. It is not down to us admins to make a definite set of criteria. That I am an admin has no bearing on this, I am here in my capacity as a regular editor. It is down to all editors to discuss and form opinion, which is what this discussion is aimed at. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously not an accident but a deliberate attack that belongs in List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems Borgenland (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To which it had already been listed. Borgenland (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The title itself is self-evident otherwise it should have been called the Abuja-Kaduna accident which in turn would have made it appear that bandits accidentally took along the victims, accidentally discharged their guns at them, somehow gained access wads of cash and jewelry that rained down from the train and accidentally left a bomb at the rails Borgenland (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the real question is whether a terrorist attack is a subset of an accident or its own thing. Classification of railway accidents and the organization of {{Rail accidents}} point toward the former, but I don't know that it's ever been discussed. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There were instances of attacks being removed from the list. The only exceptions I made for such attacks was if the perpetrator was mentally ill like in Daegu subway fire Borgenland (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Including an attack does defeat the definition of an accident itself. It is extremely rare for one to accidentally discharge a high-caliber weapon at innocent civilians or simply drop bombs on railway tracks like a litterbug. Including these in the general accidents list would make the page a laughing-stock for readers unfortunately. Borgenland (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Including these in the general accidents list would make the page a laughing-stock for readers unfortunately I think that assertion requires some proof. Shipwrecks, for example (see e.g. Lists of shipwrecks) include those lost to natural causes and those lost to enemy action. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The word shipwreck is neutral. The word accident is more strict. Borgenland (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There has been a recent (last few months) spate of editing by anons, adding all manner of occurrences that just happened to be on or even merely close to a railway line. Some of these were accidents of consequence, but a lot were relatively minor, bordering on the day-to-day happening like some foolish car driver not showing proper respect for a level crossing. I am not saying to remove all level crossing collisions - some were particularly serious, and not only warrant inclusion but also deserve standalone articles (e.g. Hixon rail crash and Ufton Nervet rail crash). There were also a number of shootings; a crime occurring on a railway is not, of itself, a railway accident, although it might bring about an accident. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I do suggest removing level collisions that killed one person and those involving a solo tresspassing pedestrian. Borgenland (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

With level crossing accidents, I suggest that the derailment of the train involved be the threshold for inclusion. Another threshold might be a significant number of deaths (double figures?), whether or not a derailment is involved. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the starting point should be that every incident that has it's own article or at least a paragraph of information on another article is included on the list. Incidents that don't meet that requirement should only be included if they are more notable than is typical for contemporary similar incidents, perhaps require coverage in national media and/or spanning at least a week? Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

For perspective, consensus in the List of traffic collisions (2000-present) sets the minimum # of deaths at five, including collisions with trains Borgenland (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well there are far more traffic collisions than rail accidents, but even so solely using number of deaths would exclude some events that absolutely should be on the list (e.g. Hatfield rail crash (4 deaths), Grayrigg derailment (1 death), 2021 Salisbury rail crash (0 deaths)). Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is a stand-alone article, there absolutely should be an entry in the list. Pretty sure we can all agree on that one. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree on that. For as long as the word “attack” is not used to describe the article title. Borgenland (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that depends. Some events where the cause is external to the railway are not railway accidents (e.g. 2005 London bombings) other events where the cause is external to the railway are railway accidents (e.g. Ufton Nervet rail crash). I don't think it's possible to draw a hard and fast line between them, especially as events like 2004 Sri Lanka tsunami train wreck is widely cited as the deadliest rail accident. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well bombings are deliberate, the suicide in Ufton may or may not have been made with killing anyone else in mind. The word crash itself and wreck appear to be neutral-sounding terms. Borgenland (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional item for discussion:- an accident that involves the death of at least one passenger on a train meets the criteria for inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Luz Station and Luz (CPTM) appear to be about the same station. Could someone please confirm this and merge the two articles? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup - they are. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Merged. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In response to some recent edits to articles about rail disasters on my watchlist, I have started this discussion at one of the MOS talk pages. Input from participants here would be welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CrossCountry NE–SW route#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi team – I think a map of the proposed route of the Interborough Express would be helpful. The route is well-known, and many news articles about the IBX and the MTA's feasibility studies have a map of it, making them all more useful than the Wikipedia page. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hubli railway division#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't answer here but at Talk:High-speed_rail_in_Turkey#Merge_Yüksek_Hızlı_Tren please Chidgk1 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Guys please comment there - we need you as only 2 have commented besides me as the proposer Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See discussion at the template page. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, an article on the Grauholz tunnel has recently been created and I wanted to ask if this project has any specific notability criteria that we could use to evaluate this entry? Thanks, Superboilles (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

GNG and/or WP:NGEO. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I need some expert advice on one aspect of an interesting little article I've been working on: Salt Clay Creek railway disaster, which happened in 1880s Australia. I have written

He applied the air brake and reversed the engine, but too late.^[1]

Mention of air brake came from a contemporary newspaper cutting, and "reversed the engine" from a railways historical magazine. Would these not be mutually exclusive, or are the air-brakes only applied to the carriages and brake van and not the driving wheels? Also the article Reversing gear does not mention throwing the driving wheels into reverse for greater braking effort, only for normal shunting practice. Regards, Doug butler (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Many Australian steam locomotives were supplied by British manufacturers, so it's probable that similar principles were used. In the UK, steam locomotives used on passenger trains typically had more than one brake control. Besides a handbrake, normally used only to keep the loco in one place after it had stopped, there would be a control for the loco's own brakes, and one for the train brakes. The loco brake was usually steam-operated, where steam pressure inside the brake cylinder applies the brake. The train brake could be any of four different types:

• simple vacuum, where decreased pressure (increased vacuum) inside the brake pipe applies the brake and atmospheric pressure releases it
• automatic vacuum, where decreased pressure (increased vacuum) inside the brake pipe releases the brake and atmospheric pressure applies it
• straight air, where increased air pressure inside the brake pipe applies the brake and atmospheric pressure releases it
• Westinghouse, where increased air pressure inside the brake pipe releases the brake and atmospheric pressure applies it

Whichever type was used, it is important to realise that the train brake control does not operate the locomotive brakes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, particularly using steam pressure for the loco's brakes. The big question is still: can the driver throw the engine into reverse for extra braking effort? Doug butler (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

In theory, yes. Either of two things may happen: (i) steam continues to flow from the boiler to the steam chests, but because of the reversed position of the valve gear, the steam enters the cylinders at the opposite ends and the wheels actually reverse direction; or (ii) the wheels continue to rotate in the forwards direction, but because of the reversed position of the valve gear, air is drawn from the smokebox down the blastpipe to the cylinders (the principle of the counter-pressure brake), and is then pushed back through the steam chests to the boiler - the pressure of the steam in the boiler resists this back-flow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Train has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd appreciate additional opinions on Talk:Perryville station, where the discussion seems to be going in circles. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've realised that in 2005 I put some WP:original research into this section. Would somebody who isn't me like to trim it to what belongs there, please? I've put a note in Talk:Bradford Forster Square railway station#Station name. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I just checked the Rio Grande 223 page and there were unsubstantiated claims the locomotive project had returned to being an active restoration, which is incorrect. The claim also used an out of date restoration study from John Bush who worked at the Cumbres & Toltec as part of this claim that the restoration had returned to active status.

I think it would be best to either monitor the page or put it under authority control until further news clarifies the locomotive status, to prevent further speculation from being published in the article. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hydrail#Requested move 3 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tractive force#Requested move 1 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Monument station (Massachusetts) and Monument station (MBTA) have been nominated for deletion at RfD as there is no content that the nominator (or I) can find on Wikipedia about this (or these) former station(s) (it's not clear to me if they were the same). If this is incorrect, please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 3#Monument station (Massachusetts) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 3#Monument station (MBTA). Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:List of companies transferred to Conrail#Article title and scope; I think there are some far-reaching implications for the entire Conrail categorization scheme and input would be appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

UK rolling stock after 1997, when British Rail ceased operation, is incorrectly being attributed to it. An example of a loco, being the article title for the 2013 British Rail Class 68 and an example of a train, being the 2001 British_Rail_Class_450.

Rolling stock numbering is carried out by the Rail Safety and Standards Board - Rail Industry Standard RIS-2453-RST: Vehicle Registration, Marking and Numbering, not that the numbering standard should be attributed in the title (Rail Safety and Standards Board class 68, anyone ?).

The class 68 is a locomotive operating in Britain, so Class 68 (British locomotive). Similarly, the class 450 is a train operating in Britain, so Class 450 (British train), would be accurate and clear titles, understandable to a wide audience and sufficient to distinguish them from differing, and identically named, rolling stock in other countries. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 04:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times previously and there has never been a consensus to change. You are welcome to propose it again, but I strongly recommend you read the previous discussion first, including:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2018#Naming conventions and capitalisation for loco class articles?
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 14#Naming of British rolling stock articles
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 21#Article titles - Post-BR locomotives and the following section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 21#Proposal.

In short the current system is justified by the post-privatisation (which was 1994 not 1997) rolling stock continues to use the British Rail classification scheme, and there is value in a consistent naming scheme that doesn't require a reader to know when a particular type of train was first introduced or to understand why the train in platform 1 is a British Rail Class 158, the train in platform 2 is a Class 185 (British multiple unit), that in platform 3 is a Class 802 (multiple unit) and the one in platform 4 is a Class 68 (locomotive) (they are differently ambiguous with other things). Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Thryduulf and long-standing WP:CONSENSUS. The trains are classified under TOPS, which was pioneered by British Rail. There is much to be said for consistency in article titles when said articles cover a similar topic. If we need to disambiguate, we can easily do so (e.g. British Rail Class 70 (diesel) and British Rail Class 70 (electric). Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Found at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous):

Hi, can anyone who may be interested in railways articles, and has some background knowledge of technical terms, help me clean up this draft article if possible? Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a splitting proposal discussion at Talk:Canadian Pacific Railway about the creation of a History of the Canadian Pacific Railway page that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. RetroCosmos (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Should redirects like Exeter St. David's railway station → Exeter St Davids railway station be created? St. Paul's tube station → St Paul's tube station exists. 92.17.4.86 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, largely because it's s close already but also WP will show those results in the search box when you search for it with a full stop. However, I'm happy to be corrected if rules on this exist somewhere. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If they already exist, leave them alone because they're harmless. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, in English and Australian usage, the full stop is not used for an abbrev. where the last letter of the short form is the last letter of the complete word. HOWEVER "Avenue" and "Street" are written as Ave. and St. because that last letter comes from the guts of the word not its tail. That works out nicely in the current context, so St. is "Street" and St is "Saint". Doug butler (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never heard of a street/saint distinction of that type. There are plenty of street name signs which lack the full stop. In Oxford, there are even signs that read e.g. "ST ALDATES ST" or "ST EBBES ST". --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Such a distinction is brand new to me too. I can't put my finger on where right now, but I remember reading that TfL never abbreviate "Street" but do abbreviate "Saint" as both "St" and "St." depending on context. It also doesn't match my experience of abbreviations in British English, such as "sp." for "spelling", "etc." for "et cetera", "abbr." for "Abbreviation", which are all seen both with and without full stops.

To answer the OP's question, I don't see any reason not to create them, and would not object if someone wanted to create them with a bot, but I haven't the desire to request it (at least at the moment). Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Sydney Metro is a completely different mode of transport to the rest of the network. To differentiate the stations, should they be moved to xxx Metro station or something similar instead of xxx railway station? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Difficultly north: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines. While it is technically a separate mode of travel, the fare structure and stations are all integrated on the passenger experience side of things. And there's the issue that multiple stations serve both Sydney Metro and regular Sydney Trains and/or NSW TrainLink services, within the same paid area/station area (e.g. Chatswood railway station). If you want to discuss, please feel free to have a look at WT:WikiProject Australian Transport. Fork99 (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We've already got a few Sydney Metro articles titled "xxx Metro station", such as Sydney Olympic Park metro station and Parramatta metro station. These titles are used to differentiate from the Sydney Trains stations of the same name (Sydney Olympic Park railway station and Parramatta railway station). I for one would support a requested move of the other Sydney Metro stations that are not also Sydney Trains stations. Steelkamp (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Berlin Stadtbahn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)