Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2022

Styling of S-line template

Hello WProject, please see Template_talk:S-line#Template-protected_edit_request_on_12_January_2022 for a discussion regarding changing the styling of that template. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Maynaguri train accident

New article on the Maynaguri train accident. Needs expansion. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:FOAMER" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:FOAMER and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Wikipedia:FOAMER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Redlinks

An IP editor has systematically unlinked several redlinks in railway articles. I'm not sure which are notable enough to deserve a future article, but an interested editor may wish to restore some of the links. Certes (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Santo Domingo Metro

Can someone take a look at the map on the Santo Domingo Metro article please, it's being pushed down by the infobox but the expand button is appearing on top of the box, blocking some text and the map itself is hiding part of the following section. I can't immediately spot what is causing it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It looked fine on my browser in preview mode, but not in the saved article. I tried reducing the map wide to minimize the conflict with the infobox, and that helped but the problem re-appeared when resizing the browser window narrower. Then I aligned the map to the left which works, (unless you really want the map centered). MB 15:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Two hundred untranscluded route diagram templates

Hello again, WP Trains folks! Last time I was here, I asked about 1,200 unused S-line templates, and you were quite helpful. Since then, editors have updated many more articles to use {{Adjacent stations}}, and the S-line template population has been reduced even further.

This time, I am here to ask about 200 untranscluded route diagram templates, including some that have been created very recently but are not used in any articles.

You can see a near-complete list of the untranscluded (as of a few hours ago) RDTs on this page. That list excludes any templates modified in the last four months, so there are really more than 200. Here's a random sampling:

• Template:Alabama and Gulf Coast Railway
• Template:Cromford and High Peak Railway deviation 1892
• Template:FC&P Railway (Tampa Division)
• Template:Isle of Man steam railway
• Template:Jaipur Superfast Express
• Template:Manila Light Rail Transit System
• Template:MBTA Orange Line 1909–1918
• Template:Stuttgart–Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt railway

The templates depict train systems in many countries, at a level of detail that is exquisite for something that is not transcluded anywhere. There are even some brand new unused templates, created in January 2022, such as:

• Template:BART service
• Template:Massachusetts rail network
• Template:Tiruchirappalli–Madurai line

The level of effort that must go into creating these detailed templates makes me wonder why they are not transcluded in articles. Are they used in some other way? Who can enlighten me?

For context, there are only about 2,600 untranscluded templates that have not been edited since September 2021, so 200 RDTs is a significant fraction of those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Jonesey95: Some may be deliberately untranscluded because they are larger versions of the templates included in articles. There's a category for those; it escapes me right now. I can help look through these. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. If those larger versions are linked from articles so that people can look at detailed RDTs if they want, we can mark those templates as "used" so that they do not appear in "unused template" reports. Feel free to mark up my sandbox with notes or copy it to your user space to make notes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Found it, Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates. If you're working off Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates those are already excluded. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the report we are working from. All of the above templates, and the ones on my list, are on the report, so they are not in that category. If there are some that should be in that category, let me know which ones, and why. I can make it happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Jonesey95: I've refreshed my own list at User:Mackensen/Unused RDT diagrams. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Twenty of these are unused MBTA line templates:

Extended content

Title Page ID Namespace Size (bytes) Last change MBTA Silver Line 41685121 10 3051 20210603084935 MBTA Green Line 1912–1913 54815442 10 1225 20200503233259 MBTA Green Line 1941 54819553 10 2092 20200607185811 MBTA Red Line 1912–1914 54820288 10 767 20190429000059 MBTA Red Line 1915 55278906 10 1078 20190429000106 MBTA Red Line 1916 55278943 10 1179 20190429000112 MBTA Red Line 1917 55278979 10 1287 20190429000119 MBTA Red Line 1918–1926 55279012 10 1223 20190429000125 MBTA Red Line 1927 55279053 10 1557 20190429000132 MBTA Red Line 1928 55279185 10 1660 20190429000145 MBTA Red Line 1929–1970 55279348 10 1905 20190429000152 MBTA Orange Line 1908 55290670 10 1602 20200627070717 MBTA Orange Line 1909–1918 58401425 10 1900 20200627070819 MBTA Orange Line 1919–1937 58405710 10 1973 20200503233950 MBTA Orange Line 1938–1941 58405747 10 1312 20200503234000 MBTA Blue Line 1904–1905 58410037 10 729 20190429013222 MBTA Blue Line 1906–1913 58417517 10 792 20190429013229 MBTA Blue Line 1914–1915 58417606 10 718 20190429013234 MBTA Blue Line 1916–1923 58417741 10 949 20190429013241 MBTA Blue Line 1924–1941 58417830 10 977 20190429013247

With the exception of {{MBTA Silver Line}}, these are all point-in-time historical templates. Probably suitable for a mass nomination; hard to see how they would be incorporated. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they were created for something similar to Orange Line (MBTA)#Historical routes, but there's not really a need for them. The Orange Line has a particularly complicated Ship of Theseus history that needed that. The Silver Line template is fully replaced, I just forgot to tag it for deletion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Following up on Jonesey95's post of 01:20 hrs, is what is meant are diagrams such as East Coast Main Line diagram and West Coast Main Line diagram? These highly detailed diagrams are too large to be used in the articles, where a simplified diagram is in use. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that is a page in article space. I am only looking at pages in Template space, where pages with no transclusions and that are not being used in some other way are generally nominated for deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. Unlike the 1,200 S-line templates mentioned above which were replaced with newer data modules, these templates should be dealt with individually (or at the very least grouped by company). One week is insufficient time to look into the history, usage and background of this many pages. To wit, it has taken me over half an hour to determine why Template:Northern (train operating company) route 16 is unused. (It was orphaned 25 December 2021 when List of Northern Trains routes deleted.) Looking at another example, {{Tiruchirappalli–Madurai line}} appears to have been created in anticipation of a new article. It's hardly fair to and editor's work a week after they created it in a misguided effort to "clean up". It's neither reasonable nor possible to investigate each of these before they're deleted Useddenim (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see what it is that you are opposing, or where you are getting the idea that there is some sort of one-week deadline. I came here to ask about these templates because sometimes, when there is a batch of templates that appears to be unused but it is clear that a lot of work has gone into them, there is an explanation. Because templates like {{Northern (train operating company) route 16}} have no documentation explaining what they are for and how to use them, I agree that it can take a while to figure out what they were for. I encourage all RDT template creators to provide at least some minimal documentation that links to the pages where the template is intended to be used, as shown at {{Amtrak Floridian}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've turned up several cases of maps mistakenly removed from articles, where no-one noticed. In an ideal world, we can get the number of untranscluded RDTs down to where one showing up in such a report would help editors catch these issues. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We have been working on the unused template report, and we have found tons of abandoned stuff from more than ten years ago. This appears to be the first time that someone has taken a thorough look at that report in over a decade, so it's no wonder that there is a large pile. Once we are pretty much done going through it, it should be a lot easier to notice when something new appears on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Too many British railway articles have too many pointless sections

Moved to WT:UKT § Too many British railway articles have too many pointless sections

Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Underused Adjacent station modules

Hey train editors! I've came across some Adjacent station modules that were created but then not converted. If anyone is looking for some clean up action here is the list:

Gonnym (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Input requested at a merger discussion

Hi all, there's a stalled merger discussion, opened in December, at Talk:Fitzgerald Subdivision#Merger proposal that's in need of some more comments to establish consensus. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Succession templates for bus lines

I'm interested in getting folks opinion on the use of succession templates for bus lines on train station articles in the Munich area. Puchheim station is representative, showing tables for Regional and Express bus lines operated by Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft and Münchner Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund. For my part I think they aren't very useful to the reader and should be removed: bus stops generally aren't notable and we're not likely to ever create such articles, there aren't even articles about any of the individual bus routes here or on the German Wikipedia. I think this can be summed up with an entry in the infobox for connections, referenced to the MVV and/or MVG system maps. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

While I have been creating some articles on bus lines, I can't see individual stops ever being notable even in the form of list articles. Thus I agree that the adjacent stations templates for bus routes aren't very useful. NemesisAT (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete all, these stops are not notable and we should instead focus on creating articles for remaining rail stations. Cards84664 21:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - local and intercity buses do not need succession templates. BRT lines with independently notable rail-like stations (like the J Line) are, of course, a comparatively rare exception. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• support removal of succession templates for bus lines in Munich area train station articles; listing "Bus" in the infobox field for connections should suffice. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Rail gauge world.svg

the railroad gauge which is currently most used in each country

I've just seen this image at the top of the Rail freight transport article, and it's also used on quite a few other articles. The concept is a good and useful one - but it contains some noticeable errors, including

• Ireland and Northern Ireland are shown as majority standard gauge but the entire island principally uses 1600mm gauge
• Spain, Portugal and Finland are all shown as majority standard gauge but the former two mainly use Iberian gauge (1668mm) and the latter five foot gauge (1524mm)
• Australia is shown as entirely standard gauge but as Rail gauge in Australia makes clear this is highly misleading.

I've not looked in any more detail than that so there are likely other errors too. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The graph does claim to depict "the most common" gauge in each country. Standard gauge does appear to be the most common in Australia (if not by so much of an overwhelming margin as elsewhere). No comment on the rest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Track gauge in Ireland is principally 1600 mm, so the republic of Ireland should be an appropriate shade of green. The UK is correctly depicted as mainly 1435 mm; what this means for Northern Ireland (principally 1600 mm) depends on the definition of "country". Certes (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to help modify the file - it's designed to be extremely easy to update. All I'd need is a full list of which countries need updated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: - that grey dot where the Isle of Man is should be red, the majority of railways on the IoM were 3' gauge. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You'd be hard pushed to find any 1435 mm gauge track in Northern Ireland. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I wrote "principally" as there are a few miles of three-foot gauge, but if NI is to be shown separately then it should appear as 1600 mm. Certes (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see that Panama is in the wrong color, as both the Panama Canal Railway and the Panama Metro use standard gauge. Only the mules on the Panama Canal locks still use broad gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobeyama Station

Do stations normally have climate data? I see a lot of airports and although the weather stations are located there the climate data only appears in the associated community. See Nobeyama Station. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For airports it's important because of the conditions required for safe takeoff and landing. For railway stations it's of much smaller consequence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying not normally seen in railway stations? Weatherboxes are never supposed to be in airport articles either. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I certainly can't recall ever seeing such. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing any railway stations with climate data either. If a railway station happens to be the location of a weather station then that might be worth mentioning in the prose, but unless it was the location of a weather extreme, consistently the sunniest place in $large_region or some other sort of notable weather event I can't think of a reason to mention the weather at all - and all those mentions would be prose not a box. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I was going to move it to the article about the inhabited location is is in, but that one also has a weather box (if under a second level header, so didn't notice at first glance). So I've just removed it. Not much point in keeping it anyways, as per what you say. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Relevant move discussion

I have initiated a move discussion at Talk:Rail freight transport#Requested move 23 February 2022 that is of importance to this project. I'd appreciate if some editors here could weight in with their thoughts on the merits of the proposed move. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Illinois Northern Railroad

The article Illinois Northern Railroad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moon Joon (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Track gauge and modeling: old documentation to be deleted

Template:Track gauge/documentation notes has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at TfD, 2022 March 4.

The page says: "This page saves the documentation pre May 2014. Data is outdated. The notes are not available any more, but might be useful for research (especially the scaled gauges)." So, if interested editors want to use that info for reseach (like sourcing etc.), one could do so for one week (until deletion) or argue for keeping. -DePiep (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moved to WP:TRAINS: WP:TRAINS/2014 Track gauge documentation notes (abandoned). As the page says, possibly useful for (scaled) gauges sourcing & backgrounds. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Protection for modules

I just reverted two edits by an IP at Module:Adjacent stations/Milwaukee Road. The edits looked good but "il" was not defined and many articles were showing "Lua error in Module:Adjacent_stations/Milwaukee_Road at line 38: Tried to read nil global il." Perhaps someone would be able to check what the IP was trying to do and repeat their edit with fixes if warranted. Meanwhile, that module is transcluded on 121 pages. Is there a recommended level of protection for such modules? Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Module:Adjacent stations/JR East has permanent semi-protection due to a high level of invocations. However, I would recommend semi for most of these modules as that IP range (/45) has made a lot of unverified edits (most are false) in regards to services at specific stations. Cross-referencing timetables and old copies of the Official Guide of the Railways is where most edits can be verified, but again most by this IP are inaccurate or outright false. Cards84664 23:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And to answer your question yes I'll verify those edits at some point today. Cards84664 23:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I semi-protected the module indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shin-Ochanomizu Station#Requested move 5 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shin-Ochanomizu Station#Requested move 5 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siemens Modular Metro (Kaohsiung Metro)#Requested move 25 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siemens Modular Metro (Kaohsiung Metro)#Requested move 25 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Stations naming convention questions

Hey, I had a couple of questions about naming conventions pages for railway stations after coming into contact with this area. I put them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations#Naming conventions questions. I'm unsure if one proposed guideline was ever accepted, and I have a suggestion for a page title now occupied by a historical proposal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Baltimore Light Rail station naming and sources

I would appreciate input from additional editors at Talk:Mt. Royal / University of Baltimore / MICA station regarding the naming of several stations and what sources are reliable. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Rail sabotage in Belarus during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hello, I recently created the draft Rail war in Belarus (2022). Any help from this project would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Chicago Operating Rules Association (CORA)

I would like to suggest the creation of a page on CORA (Chicago Operating Rules Association).

These rules supplement GCOR and pertain to the greater Chicago area.

The METRA commuter trains operate under CORA, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcovello (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Avondale Road Station discussion

Kia ora - I've opened a discussion at Talk:Avondale Road railway station about whether that station actually existed - any input from subject-matter experts like yourselves would be appreciated! Turnagra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Odakyu 8000 series § Traction equipment bloat

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Odakyu 8000 series § Traction equipment bloat. XtraJovial (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

List of railroads by state - should street railroads be listed separately?

Hi all, this has been a question on my mind for a while. On our lists of railroads by state for the U.S., the lists include present railroads, historical railroads, and historical street railroads (interurbans, trolleys, and the like). I'm wondering if we should really keep these all in the same list. For example, at List of Connecticut railroads, which I've worked on a fair bit, there's 12 active railroad companies excluding heritage railroads, a bunch of defunct ones listed as well, and then a list of street railroads. I'm thinking the street railroads should be listed in a separate list article. They were regulated differently, mapped differently (take a look at the map on that article, it only lists "steam railroads") and in general street railroads were not succeeded by "steam railroads" but simply abandoned. I think it makes sense to list them in separate list articles to keep length reasonable and allow improvements to be made to each type of list separately.

In general there's a lot more documentation about what I'm referring to as "steam railroads" than about streetcar/trolley/interurban systems. There were and are exceptions, like interurbans or electric railroads which hauled or still do haul freight, but these can just be included on both articles. The way I'd like to see this be implemented, there would still be List of Connecticut railroads, but there would also be List of Connecticut street railroads or List of Connecticut streetcar operators or something along those lines for each state. Do other editors think this is reasonable? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For the most part, yes, it would be worth having separate lists. However, there will be some states with very few streetcar operators where it might make sense to keep them merged. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it probably all depends on the number: if there are only a few, a separate list is hard to justify. In this particular case, I'm not sure a separate list is warranted at this time as there are barely any sources for it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We do have these long-existing articles: List of streetcar systems in the United States (which also includes light rail systems and interurbans), Rail transit systems in the United States and List of tram and light rail systems (worldwide, but existing systems only). Although the first one is very long, splitting it into 50 lists (or even 30, or whatever) would make research much more difficult for anyone looking for info across multiple states. And for just existing street railways (i.e., streetcar systems; not commonly called "street railroads" in my experience), we have the Template:USLightRail navigation box. SJ Morg (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly it really depends on the quantity: if there is enough of something to warrant a list for it, then yes. Otherwise, not really. XtraJovial (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

For Connecticut specifically, there were a large number of streetcar operators. Many were soon consolidated, and the last ones were shut down by the 1950s. There's a ton of potential articles to be made, but as it is they are cluttering up the List of Connecticut railroads article. I'd like to get List of Connecticut railroads to FL, but having the giant streetcar operators section makes that near impossible. There are sources out there, I'd have to spend a lot of time going through newspapers.com and google books, but it's possible. With that said, I think the best solution may be to cut streetcar listings from the individual state articles entirely in most cases, and let them all be at List of streetcar systems in the United States instead. It makes more sense to keep them there, as per User:SJ Morg's points. Actively operating streetcar systems, on the other hand, I think could stay in the list of state railroads articles. For Connecticut, there are none at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me, but under this scenario, I feel that List of Connecticut railroads should include a section heading (not just a see also item) with a link to the new article List of street railways in Connecticut (I would not call them street railroads), listed by city or town like similar lists, or List of Connecticut streetcar operators after created. Getting the state railroads list to GA or FA might require that section to include a couple of sentences of text (e.g. giving at least an approx. number of [defunct] streetcar systems in the state), not just a link, but hopefully the editor(s) involved would not have too much trouble finding reliable sources for such info. – and that info would also be useful in the lead of the new street railways list article that is proposed to be created. SJ Morg (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists of rail accidents

I've been dealing with an IP recently adding all sorts of minor events to rail accident lists (for example, single or no fatality LC collisions; or events which happened on or near a train but had no strict relation to it - for example the recent subway shooting). I've discussed this previously with Mjroots, but he suggested taking this here. One problem with those lists is that there is no clear standard for inclusion. While there are obviously some things which don't go in, where to draw the line further up remains a bit fuzzy. I'm not sure that "only notable rail accidents which have their own article" is an appropriate standard, but beyond rejecting a few obvious WP:INDISCRIMINATE instances further down (for example, as I was noting, routine LC incidents), I can't think up of some other well accepted standard to keep these lists manageable. Suggestions would be a good idea. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There's standards for air crashes, right? We should establish similar ones for rail accidents. And in general create some sort of project-wide policy on the matter we can point to instead of having to explain every single time why a derailment where 1 axle came off the tracks a bit, nobody was hurt, and the train was re-railed an hour later doesn't merit inclusion on a list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a standard for aviation; Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents is a bit of a mess and there's all sorts of overlapping and non-overlapping pages. List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) doesn't appear to have any limiting criteria (other than limiting to military aircraft); most of the entries on List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by airline (P–Z) lack either of an article or a source, ... I don't have the patience to go clean up that part of the encyclopedia right now, but I'm confident it's not a model to be followed. The only list that appears like it has some form of inclusion criteria seems to be List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, which is entirely limited to entries with articles. Whether we want to do that or not, I'm not sure. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

For List of accidents on Amtrak, I arbitrarily set "deaths or 20+ injuries among passengers and/or railroad personnel" as the standard, and that seems to work well. It eliminates routine level crossing incidents, minor derailments, and so on. (There are a very small number of actually notable level crossing incidents that don't meet this standard, but they are few enough to be considered individually.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

See the lead of List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft and List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation which do attempt to set criteria, although neither of those are really clear either. MB 15:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We did try to put together WP:RAILCRASH, partly based on WP:AIRCRASH. We didn't finish it, let alone get it adopted. Mjroots (talk · contribs) was one of those involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with these lists is that their scope is undefined. The commercial aircraft list is probably the way to go - no article = no entry. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that

A) has an article

B) doesn't have an article, but has sufficient sourcing that it could be made into a decent article (i.e. the first point of WP:CSC)

C) has attracted non-breaking-news coverage (like, say, a full-fledged investigation report) which is significant but wouldn't be enough to sustain a whole article - although it would probably warrant mention in an existing article (i.e. say, something that would be doomed to be a perma-stub, but for which we have something interesting and encyclopedic to say about - for ex., the first incident here which, owing to its age, is unlikely to have much more stuff written about it).

Would be appropriate criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I am usually just a watcher here, but I have had experience trying to manage a few list pages, and I have found that criterion 1 at WP:CSC, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article", is by far the easiest type of list to manage. If a list item doesn't have an article yet, it can't go in the list. If it is notable but does not have an article, create at least a referenced stub, and then the item can go in the list. Otherwise, arguments will be perpetual. My two cents. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: - The example you gave would have been covered in contemporary newspapers, which are available online. An article could probably be written about it. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: WP:NOPAGE may be a consideration for some accidents, which definitively received encyclopedically interesting and significant coverage, but which might not be enough to warrant a dedicated page. The standard could be simpler than the odd phrasing I propose, but I still think that kind of stuff should probably be included in the list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the list should include some events that do not have an article. Looking at List of rail accidents (2020–present)#2022 for example:

• The first entry ("in Seoul, South Korea, A Ktx Train headed from Busan to Seoul derailed in Central South Korea, 7 were injured.") seems borderline, but derailments that lead to injuries are (afaia) uncommon in South Korea.
• The second entry ("A Metrolink train collides with a Cessna 172 Skyhawk at Pacoima, Los Angeles, California, destroying the aircraft...") should definitely be included as trains hitting planes is definitely noteworthy due to rarity, but there isn't enough to say to support a full article.

How to distil this into actual criteria is tricky, but I think we can agree on starting points:

• Any incident with an article should always be included.
• Level crossing collisions that cause no deaths or injuries to those on the train should not be included.
• Incidents that are not related to the operation of the railway should not be included (e.g. the NYC subway shooting) absent exceptional circumstances.
• Incidents that result in more fatalities than any other incident in that country in the last few years should be included. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: IMvHO, level crossing incidents which result in the derailment of a train are includable whether or not there are injuries or deaths. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    Unless they are treated any differently by sources from all of the dozens of other "dumb person in a road vehicle" situations, I don't see why they should be included or treated any differently from other accidents. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE both come to mind. Most LC incidents, even those that do cause some injuries or fatalities, are not notable and receive almost nothing but short-term local breaking news coverage (which are useful for people living in the area, but have no purpose on an encyclopedia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    • Train derailment in level crossing accidents are rare enough ( >1%) to be includable. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Level crossing derailments can occur on infrequently used and poorly maintained track, and thus be unimportant. I think criteria should not get into such specifics. Either it has an article or could likely have an article supported by multiple sources beyond routine local coverage. MB 23:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Small categories by gauge and country

Is it desirable to keep intersection categories for just one article on a railway of a specific gauge in a specific country? WP:SMALLCAT makes an exception for "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", but it is not clear that these are useful here. E.g. Category:900 mm gauge railways has a lot of single-railway sub-cats by country. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Category:900 mm gauge railways in Iceland, where one of these has been nominated for merging. – Fayenatic London 11:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasatch Railroad Contractors

I have been working on creating an article on the history of Wasatch Railroad Contractors, and am wondering if anyone can give a glance at the draft to help move it up to article status: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wasatch_Railroad_Contractors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xboxtravis7992 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a new article on Higher speed commuter rail/suburban rapid transit ?

Hello members. I am writing this to initiate a discussion and to get your views & opinions on this subject matter. Lately, we are seeing a rise of higher speed (i.e. between 160-200 km/hr) commuter rail systems. There are 2 operational systems currently which I am aware of i.e the Line 18 of the Guangzhou Metro and the Guiyang railway loop line. The Delhi–Meerut Regional Rapid Transit System is under construction with multiple other similar systems planned across India. So my question is does these deserve a special article of their own or should this be a part of commuter rail or rapid transit article sections ? Regards, GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposing a move of "Hornby Railways" to "Hornby Hobbies"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am proposing to move the Hornby Railways article to "Hornby Hobbies". Past move requests have not generated much attention, so I'm notifying this wikiproject in case anyone here has opinions on the proposal. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What Eldomtom2 (talk · contribs) totally fails to mention is that (a) the discussion is at Talk:Hornby Railways#Requested move 24 April 2022; and (b) this is the third RM that they have started for that page, each time with a different proposed new name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This is nothing but bitter sniping. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So why did you not provide a link to the discussion? People should not be made to guess, otherwise they won't get there - which may be exactly why past move requests have not generated much attention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous and next stations in Doha Metro infobox

Any reason why, in the infoboxes of Doha Metro stations, there's no table with links to the previous and next stations? We bave an article on every Green Line station (including their crossover stations with the other lines), as well as a few other Red Line stations; and the other stations have article titles in the NavBox. Animal lover 666 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, beyond the fact that no one has taken the time to do it. I can tackle that project; it won't take very long. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666 Done. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Train route succession should always run in the same direction

I believe that with any given line, the succession boxes should always run in the same direction for any given line. For example, if along most of the MBTA Red Line the left side is Alewife, this should certainly be maintained along the entire line, including both branches south of where they split. However, User:Pi.1415926535 is arguing that the Ashmont branch should go the other way - apparently for two reasons: that the section in question goes slightly westwards towards Ashmont while the northern section of the route goes eastward; and to match the former service at the station. Who's right in this case? Animal lover 666 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Lines that bend back on themselves, as the Red Line does, can be tricky. In general, I think the preference is that the succession templates mirror physical geography, with west/north on the left and east/south on the right. There are times when that doesn't quite work, and you have to do what makes the most sense for the system in general. On geographic grounds, the Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line runs east from Mattapan to Ashmont so having Mattapan on the left makes sense. If the Red Line actually ran through to Mattapan then I'd think you'd keep Mattapan as the right-hand terminus, ignoring the sharp turn south of Ashmont. Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The question here isn't the Mattapan line. It's the Ashmont branch of the Red Line proper, south of the fork point with the Braintree branch. Animal lover 666 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule that disallows switching directions in succession boxes when needed. In some cases with overlapping services - the BART stations around the Oakland Wye being a great example - it is absolutely necessary to do so. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where the same adjacent station is shown in succession boxes on opposite sides. There are dozens of cases where a carefully-applied direction switch is used to preserve the logical orientation.

Left/right corresponding with west/east is (for the western world) a fairly strong association owing to the north-up map orientation standard, and that's broadly followed with succession boxes. Continuity is also obviously desirable, and it's not an issue if the standard east/west orientation is slightly off for a small section. However, for a branch or major section of a line - like the Ashmont Branch / Mattapan Line - with a obvious east-west orientation, it will be confusing for the reader if the directions of the succession boxes do not match their automatic expectations. Readers are unlikely to notice that the box directions switch between Fields Corner station and Savin Hill station, but they will absolutely notice if Central Avenue station is implied to be east of Milton station rather than the actual due west. It makes much more sense to have the boxes switch between Fields Corner and Savin Hill (or Savin Hill and JFK/UMass as the official system map does), than to have an awkward switch at Ashmont.

Consistency among all services shown is also important to avoid confusion. In this case, you changed the direction of the current MBTA services, but did not change the direction of the former services. This resulted in the two sets of services being reversed from each other - again, confusing to the reader. The former services also did not have a transfer at Ashmont, meaning that it's again best to have the Ashmont Branch and the Mattapan Line coordinated, with the direction switch at the branch point. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There are closely-related posts by myself and Dr Greg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Templates#Route information boxes. These indicate that the ideal isn't always achievable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, consistency within a line (what would possibly be a single ride on the train) is top priority. Consistency with extant lines is more important than with discontinued lines. Animal lover 666 (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Austrian rail accident investigation body

What is the Austrian equivalent of the British RAIB? We don't seem to have an article on it. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

According to https://www.era.europa.eu/agency/stakeholder-relations/national-investigation-bodies_en, it comes under the Sicherheitsuntersuchungsstelle des Bundes [ de ], which has a rail section. Certes (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mjroots: It's the de:Sicherheitsuntersuchungsstelle des Bundes. And for where this is heading, there's nothing about the latest accident on their site ([1] ; [2]); I can only find a couple of tweets about it ([3]) from the minister ("Yesterday one person was killed in a tragic train accident in Muenchendorf [..] The SUB have already begun their work to quickly clarify the causes of this accident."); which don't tell anything substantial about it either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

For those wondering about the "where this is heading" comment - Münchendorf derailment is the relevant article. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion

Hello, a discussion has been started here concerning the reliability of the Railscot website for use as a source. Please contribute if interested, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Bergen Line GA Reassessment

Bergen Line has been nominated for an individual 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. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Railway Surgery GA Reassessment

Railway surgery has been nominated for a community 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) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Santa Fe 769 Sources

I am seeing claims in the Wiki page for Santa Fe 769 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santa_Fe_769) claims the engine will be restored to operation. But other than the one Facebook page linked, none of the sources seem to actually confirm this. Anyone else willing to give it a look to see if there is sufficient sources on the page, and the claims of the page are not claiming things that are not properly cited?

Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A railfan adding unsourced content to a train article? Must be a day that ends in y. I did find this article on trains magazine's website which appears to support the claim that they are trying to restore the locomotive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That Trains article is reference #8 now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:901:58E0:4C22:8DB2:5593:41EA (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that mention now in the Trains article of hoping to see it in steam, so that backs the source. I still see things though like discussing weight restrictions on the railroad line which I am curious if those claims have been sourced properly though in the article. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Module talk:Adjacent stations/Reading Company

I've raised a question about how we're modeling the former lines/services of the Reading Company at Module talk:Adjacent stations/Reading Company#Main line and related issues; this may inform how we handle "fallen flags" elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Consistent Treatment of Railroads

I have noticed what I believe is some bias on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) page. The article has a pretty big section called Notable accidents and then a section called Environmental record. That negativity is not presented on the page of UP's biggest rival, BNSF Railway, which has a small Safety section that is mostly positive. The east coast railroad Norfolk Southern Railway has nothing about accidents, and its Environmental record has positive and negative information. The other large east coast railroad, CSX Transportation, has nothing about the environment. It does have a simple list of accidents and incidents. I believe there should be some type of standard template that should be followed. This would help prevent people with biased opinions about certain railroads from editing articles to make a railroad look worse or better than it is. We do not want a railroad's competitor to edit articles on their rival to make it look bad. We do not want someone with a grudge to use Wikipedia to make a railroad look bad. In addition to standard sections for a railroad, safety statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration should be used, and updated each year. Right now, the UP page makes that railroad look like it is a danger to society, while BNSF appears to be a much safer railroad. If everyone had FRA statistics on their page, it would be much more fair. (The FRA statistics will show a better safety record for BNSF, but UP is not a total disaster.) There needs to be a standard for Class I railroads, regional railroads, small railroads, and defunct railroads. TwoScars (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We've got certain editors - principally (but not exclusively) IPs who seem to want every single unusual occurrence to be described, look at the history of e.g. List of rail accidents (2020–present) to see some examples - this is typical, notice the phrase no problems reported just before the ref. There are several places these events might be described besides those lists - an article about the railway involved, an article about the location, an article about the class of loco. It gets WP:COATRACKy at times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed [4] the "community responsibility" section a while back as being undue; on June 25 an editor decided to restore and expand it. I am not a fan of that section title, and am of the opinion it is absolutely still undue. That this is happening however is almost certainly not malice, but that different articles are at different states of comprehensiveness and are edited by different people. Our article on CSX in particular is a mess that spends more time listing every single CSX facility than talking about the encyclopedic aspects of the subject. I have a very long term goal to get all the article on Class 1s to GA status, but that would be a monumental undertaking. Part of that would involve ensuring proportionate coverage of these topics.

It is very seldom the railroads themselves editing the articles, it is typically either foamers who aren't familiar with Wikipedia policy, or someone who saw a news article one day and decided to drop it into the article without context. It can also be POV pushers. As indicated above, much of this is done via IPs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This why there should be some standard formats. If we had some standards, we would be justified for removing excess put into the articles. This could also help "steer" the foamers. Foamers can be useful, but they need to be kept in line. As an example of standards, Wikipedia Project Military History has a Manual of Style for military history articles. I once tried to call a battle "Indecisive", but that cannot be done. It has to be "Union victory", "Confederate victory", or "Inconclusive". Military units are supposed to be defined a certain way too. For example: 1st West Virginia Cavalry Regiment is the proper way to identify a regiment. It should not be called "1st West Virginia Cavalry" or "1st Regiment, West Virginia Cavalry". Keep the railroad articles on equal footing. The railroad articles can link to other related articles that keep the foamers happy. TwoScars (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that we have enough active editors who participate in this WikiProject to really make this a reality. We have maybe a dozen people who post on this talk page somewhat regularly? Most train editors have no clue this WikiProject even exists, unfortunately. I'm not saying you're wrong, quite the opposite, but implementation would likely have to be done by yourself or maybe with a few other editors helping you. In 2022, WikiProjects are on life support with only a few exceptions like MILHIST. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I will revisit this in the fall. Right now, I have two Civil War battles that I am working on, and several more potentially for review. In the fall or next winter, I will upgrade BNSF Railway and try to get it to Good Article. Then we can have a pattern for other Class I railroads. Will also need to branch off enough segments from BNSF to give foamers something to work with. TwoScars (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are issues with IPs adding inappropriate material, we can try semi-protection. All articles on railway/road companies should have an "Accidents and incidents" section or a separate "List of accidents on (company)" article as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's only one or two instances, it's fine to just directly incorporate that in the body. I did this with Providence and Worcester Railroad, for instance. But I'm somewhat list-averse. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

All US railroads have to report accidents, incidents, and injuries (that are above a low level of damage) to the Federal Railroad Administration. Thus, all railroads can be compared using Accidents per Million Train-Miles and Injuries per Employee Hour. Those comparisons are consistent, although differences can be caused by the terrain the railroads operate on and the commodities carried. In other words, a train operating in the crowded US northeast will have different issues than a train operating in Wyoming (US west). Coal trains will have different issues than intermodal trains carrying containers. I believe the main article can get by with these two safety statistics. If someone wants to mention a recent notable train wreck in two or three sentences, that is OK. Hurricane and natural disasters to railroad infrastructure, and the way the railroads remedy the situation, can also be of interest. Otherwise, major accidents and photos should be in a separate article. US Class I railroads have reporting requirements with the US Surface Transportation Board. Annual Report Form R-1 (on the STB web site) has an Income Statement (including Operating Revenue and Operating Expense), Balance Sheet, and supporting schedules such as locomotive counts, track, and service units like revenue ton-miles. The railroad entity in Form R-1 is US only, so corporate employees are not included, and foreign operations are not included. It is still a way to compare the Class I railroads. The STB also collects a Wage Form A&B for each Class I railroad, and it has employee counts. I have bolded some basis stats that I believe should be in each Class I railroad's Wikipedia page. Freight car counts do not make sense to include, since railroads lease and borrow from other railroads. One of the largest railcar leasing companies, TTX Company, is owned by railroads. TwoScars (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on train station notability

I have started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations that is of interest to this WikiProject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This RFC definitely needs participation from editors who know about trains and train stations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russian locomotive class IS which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. (Manually adding this notification as the bot doesn't seem to have picked it up.) Tevildo (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Meme Vandalism Problem

Nyc5475 is running around and making edits to various pages to add unsourced claims (either coming from forums like RYPN) or insert meme-language like "They should restore it and run it on the mainline) on various Wikipedia pages. I have attempted to report the user, but its not getting the attention it needs yet and they are continuing to go around unchecked. We need to keep an eye out to stop this vandalism. Some examples include the following revisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duluth_%26_Northeastern_28&oldid=1096976860 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wasatch_Railroad_Contractors&oldid=1096976786 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LB%26SCR_E2_class&oldid=1036499674 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timken_1111&oldid=1055637805 Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Contact the two people that have warned Nyc5475 on his talk page. I know one of them is busy IRL, but they will probably solve the problem. TwoScars (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Accessibility of subways

I have started this draft with some content copied from various articles about major subway systems. I am asking for some assistance to broaden the coverage of the article.

So far it only discusses the London, New York, and Paris systems and also only in terms of accessibitity for mobility impaired users. There is nothing about access features for blind or deaf passengers. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Active RfC discussion of notability of rail stations - Notability of train stations

Don't know why this project wasn't informed of this. At the WP:NOTABILITY talk page there's a RfC discussion of the notability of rail stations - Notability of train stations . Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It was: #RfC on train station notability. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hah, for some reason I missed it above. Thank you. Oakshade (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup request on Northern Trains

I have left a message regarding a cleanup tag at Talk:Northern Trains#Cleanup tag for any interested editors. Long story short, the service tables on that page are a big mess and many routes violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:1500 V DC multiple units and Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Japan

I've just listed Category:1500 V DC multiple units and Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Japan for discussion at WP:CfD. If you would like to add comments, the discussion entry is listed here. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hamilton Northwestern Railroad Draft Review

I have created my first majorish article and would like some reviews on it. Draft: Hamilton Northwestern Railroad. Feel free to edit it if you would like! I've done my best to add the sources that I could find. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmboybello (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian locomotives in Ukraine

Per [5] and [6], three Belarusian Railway locomotives, which were operating with Russian forces in northern Ukraine, have been seized by Ukrainian authorities. The second linked article has pictures - can anyone identify the type? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this helps? Moon Joon (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Review Cologne_Stadtbahn

I'm new to Wikipedia and after contributing to the article Cologne Stadtbahn a lot by translating from de:Stadtbahn_Köln, adding (mostly German) sources and writing some parts myself, I'd like someone to review the article, suggest further changes/additions to the content and/or have a look at the citations (and if there are enough remove "more citations needed" template?). Thanks in advance --Jan Lukas 22 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Soo Line 1003 "Trivia List"

Looking at the article for Soo Line 1003 and the end of the article includes a list of "other preserved 2-8-2's" which seems to have been presented arbitrarily and not with any real relation to the article. If we were to include all "Preserved 2-8-2's" we'd have to include over a dozen Rio Grande K-Classes, the EBT 2-8-2's, etc... and listing off all the Mikados would clutter the article further. Personally, I believe the 2-8-2 segment is generic trivia with very little relevance to the article, and should be removed but I want to see what other people's thoughts are before its removed. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely remove, unless they have some real connection to Soo Line 1003. None of the entries listed appear to have a connection. In general, such a section should not exist. It was added by a foamer IP in November 2021. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Stations are apparently not notable

So what now? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It means they have to follow the same rules as every other article on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Except for all the exceptions that get a free pass because they're part of a set of mainly notable things. I'm concerned that, for example, we'll lose 150 of the 2500 articles on current GB stations because someone hates request stops, which would be a stupid omission. Certes (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You could still make that argument, noting from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Jumpytoo Talk 02:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

When to capitalize Station

Visiting Denmark, I went to put a photo on a station article and found the name had capped "Station". Unlike in other countries I'm familiar with, this seems to be what's done there; see Category:Copenhagen Metro stations. But the move logs I looked at suggests these were undiscussed moves from originally lowercase "station". Is there any naming convention about this anywhere? Seems to me that like in US and UK and other places, "station" is not usually part of the proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Denmark was ever explicitly discussed anywhere. When I surveyed the state of things in 2020 I did flag the uppercase issue for the Copenhagen Metro: User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (railway stations in Europe) (see the talk page as well). Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

So, looks like Denmark is a bit of an outlier. Has there been any discussion of your survey of country conventions, or anything about moving toward more consistency? I see you downcased "station" for the Copenhagen metro already, so that resolves my immediate concern. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Not much of one: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Naming convention for stations in Europe. There was a good discussion in 2021 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2021#AlgaeGraphix and mass moves of Panama metro stations on naming in general. Mackensen (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

GAR in need of input

Hello,

Not a member of the project, but as a request... Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Railway surgery/1 has been open for about 3 months. Currently, one editor says the sources are being misrepresented in the article, while another editor (the original GA nominator) says they aren't. It seems like a volunteer with some expertise in the field needs to examine the sources to "tiebreak", since it isn't clear random non-train editors can easily tell the extent of the validity of the complaints brought up in the GAR. SnowFire (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Western Pacific Railroad Museum clean up needed

I added a new photo to Western Pacific Railroad Museum article today, but reading over the article a lot of the language isn't really sourced or verified (such as the claim the museum was one of the first rent a locomotive programs in the nation with no source). Furthermore a lot of language feels like its ripped straight out of a travel brochure. Can somebody help clean this article up with better sources and remove any language that seems less formal and more like a travel pitch? Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

From a quick glance, a bunch of text was added by an account clearly connected to the museum. It will need cleanup because of the obvious COI and likely promotional material. I will look at it when I get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

General Passenger Agent sources?

Hello WikiProject Trains! Earlier today I had trouble finding out what a General Passenger Agent was in the context of 19th-c. US railroads. I found plenty of uses of the term, but almost no explanations of it, including on Wikipedia. The only thing I found was this book which says "PRR's general passenger agent was the traffic official chiefly responsible for coordinating day-to-day operations across the railroad." I wouldn't mind putting together a quick stub, but I can't find sources for it. Can anyone suggest sources? Also, should this be a stub, or is there some other article about railroad jobs or titles or organization, where a sentence or so could be added? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Levivich 20:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: From what I've found, a general passenger agent appears to supervise station agents, but like you I've had a hard time finding much about the job title. I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been covered on Wikipedia much yet. I will keep looking. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Installation" vs "Railway"

I did a search of the project archives and couldn't find anything, so apologies if this has already been discussed. A number of railway articles have lists of specific railways that are examples of the article subject. The header title used for these lists is often "Installations". A few examples: Iberian gauge, Standard-gauge railway and 5 ft 3 in gauge railways. The term "installations" strikes me as odd - it sounds like an art gallery; you don't install a railway. I don't see this regularly in books or other sources. Some articles avoid this term, for example Metre-gauge railway uses "Examples of metre-gauge" which seems better. I could also see these sections being titled "Railways". Does anyone know the reason for the somewhat widespread use of "Installations", and should it be changed? 157.131.122.202 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

From a brief glance, it appears to be as simple as two editors, in 2011 and 2014 respectively, decided to use that terminology on some articles. Just be bold and change it to examples or some other more fitting term. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. 157.131.122.202 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Taichung line#Requested move 11 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Taichung line#Requested move 11 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Heber Valley Railroad article clean up

I just started work on heavily updating the Heber Valley Railroad page and would appreciate feedback and a second eye to check for spelling and formatting errors. A few issues of note I would appreciate a second opinion on:

• The roster sections still read with what I can only describe as "foamery" language, a sort of flowerily and non-encyclopedic tone from previous editors. Any help to update that in particular would be appreciated.
• I most heavily modified and added to the history sections, and would appreciate a second eye to check for grammar/tone while also adding more sources if available. I would still like to expand the history of the line during its Rio Grande ownership prior to preservation.
• Removal of the banner about first-person research if possible. I do admit I did do some of my own (I have seen photos showing 1218 removed from the property in February 2020, but no public source of those photos currently is available) so any help in either finding more photos to back up the 1218 move or just an eye to fixing errors of self research from previous editors would be greatly appreciated.

Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried my best to change up both rostor lists on the Heber Valley page. If making it more encyclopedic means removing all of the images, and/or build specifications, so be it. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly its already looking a lot better with a lot of the "trivia" tidbits removed. Excellent! Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Railway junctions at AfD

Is there some rationale for the recent deletion nominations of British railway junctions? I see 19 AfDs in the project alerts, all nominated on 21 Sept, and a further prod by the same nominator on 22 Sept. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the user in question why he nominated them all for deletion. Most do appear non-notable to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: This being a purely UK matter, I already raised his at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Railway junctions at AFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64. I'm pretty agnostic about railway junctions but feel mass nominations tend to stifle debate. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessment of North Carolina Transportation Museum

A GA reassessment has been started at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/North Carolina Transportation Museum/1 for the North Carolina Transportation Museum due to a number of issues. At least some of them would probably be able to be solved by someone who has the book "Coleman, Alan (2018). North Carolina Transportation Museum. Charleston, South Carolina. ISBN 1-4671-2775-2. OCLC 1007842710". Gusfriend (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Toyohashi Railroad#Requested move 5 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Toyohashi Railroad#Requested move 5 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Twin Cities Zephyr#Requested move 16 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Twin Cities Zephyr#Requested move 16 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Rail cars to transport pre-assembled switches/points: Category naming

In continental Europe, switches/points are increasingly preassembled by the manufacturers. They are then transported to the place of installation on special rail cars. We recently got good pictures of such a rail car, which was the starting point (no pun intended) for a discussion in the German wikipedia about the appropriate name for a commons category. Switch transport wagons seemed to be the best fit. Do you agree, or is there an even better term? (And: Do such cars exist outside Europe and Turkey as well?) GeorgR (de) (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This took me a bit of digging, but Plasser American does operate trains that are specifically built to carry switches [7]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This subpage of the link you provided shows a closer picture of the American variant. As far as names go, Austrian Plasser apparently uses the abbreviation WTW of the German term, Weichentransportwagen, for America as well, but describes it as a Switch and panel transport wagon. GeorgR (de) (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, the Great Western Railway had a signal works at Reading (in the land surrounded by Caversham Road, Vastern Road and the railway), where they made signals and averything concerned with signalling, including points and crossings. They would chalk out a carefully measured outline on the floor, then make the various components to fit the outline, where they would be assembled and checked for fit before being loaded onto wagons and transported to the site for installation. The wagons concerned were very much like open goods wagons, but longer and with lower sides. Other railways also carried out pre-assemby of points and crossings, and by the 1980s British Rail was using trestle wagons to carry pre-assembled points and crossings. The trestle wagon was originally devised to carry steel plate that was too wide to be loaded horizontally, so the trestle supported it at an angle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As I learned from a new article on these cars, de:Weichentransportwagen, specialized wagons are now also available in the UK: commons:File:Tilting deck switch and crossing transporters , North Wingfield.jpg. GeorgR (de) (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Genoa

My complete ignorance of locomotives wasn't enough to prevent me from touching up (?) Draft:Virginia and Truckee 12 Genoa and transforming it into Virginia and Truckee 12 Genoa. Somebody who knows something about the matter really ought to take a look at this new article, undo any gaffes I perpetrated, and perhaps make little improvements here and there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Two narrow-gauge lines in Turkey

A long while back I drafted a couple of articles on early 20th-century narrow-gauge lines in Turkey. I'm not sure why I never moved them to mainspace, but I just came across them and thought it really made no sense to keep them sitting in limbo. I would appreciate any improvements folks can make to Ilıca–Palamutluk railway and Palamutluk–Balya–Mancılık railway. Online sources for these two small lines are quite limited. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split of List of locomotives

I am proposing to split List of locomotives into two articles. See the article's talk page for more information. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

EBT Mikado Article

I got a message request recently to see if I could start work on an article for the fleet of EBT Mikados and have started this Draft:East Broad Top Railroad Mikado Locomotives. I have found some good basic sources and have started to get working on filling in some of the history, but admittedly the East Broad Top is not my specialty or something I am really well versed in. So I would appreciate if anybody else would like to help contribute and flesh out the locomotive histories and specs before moving the article from draft towards publication. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we discontinue importance parameters?

The importance parameters, while in theory a nice idea, in practice hold almost no meaning and add a massive backlog (on paper, anyways). I believe we should discontinue their use. We should identify a number of core articles (Like Train and Railway track) and just forget about importance otherwise. A number of other projects have already done so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is something wider than just this WP Proj, but I never really find it meaningful. I only ever care about an article's rating personally! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I find them when I want to find people with relevant subject knowledge in RfDs and similar - the higher the importance rating the more likely I am to find it at that project. I'm sure this is not the intended use though! Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Higher-speed rail good article reassessment

Higher-speed rail has been nominated for a community 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) 07:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States Army Transportation Corps class S118#Requested move 26 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Army Transportation Corps class S118#Requested move 26 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Units for acceleration

A discussion has been started at WP:UKRAIL about what units to use for acceleration in a loco/unit infobox. Please contribute there if you have any strong feelings! Thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

RIP EMD McCook

Friend Ed just told me that some of Electro-Motive in McCook has been razed. Soon to be warehouses. ( https://www.southwestregionalpublishing.com/2022/06/06/huge-project-in-mccook-means-jobs-jobs-jobssays-mayor/ ). Maybe a couple of buildings on the north side are left. I'll be checking, but nothing RS. I just thought somebody here might care. Sammy D III (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Notification of move request

An editor has requested for 1992 United States railroad strike to be moved to 1992 United States railroad lockout. Since you had some involvement with 1992 United States railroad strike, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Eldomtom2 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

New wikiproject proposal for editors interested in trains (and other transport modes) in Australia

I have started up a up a wikiproject proposal for Transport in Australia for those who interested I suggest checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport NotOrrio (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a good External link?

I'm too close and could use outside eyes. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone's personal blog is an unacceptable external link 99% of the time. The second I saw "blogspot" in the URL it raised an alarm to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Tracks at Stations

Stupid question, but when you count tracks at stations, do you count only the ones that have access to (i.e. platform) or all tracks that traverse through/by it? --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that we count all tracks, but note which ones are actually used for passenger trains at the station. For instance, Providence station technically has 5 tracks, but one is exclusively for Providence and Worcester Railroad freight trains to bypass the station, so there's only 4 passenger tracks. New Haven Union Station has 9 tracks, including one that's only for trains bypassing the station, so 8 tracks that actually have platforms. These examples are just for Northeastern United States articles, I am unsure if practice is different for articles covering other areas. That said, Jamaica station lists 10 tracks in the infobox, not counting two bypass tracks, so I don't know if there's really a convention agreed upon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to count the tracks that are actually used for passenger service and do not count the non-revenue tracks, though I might mention them in prose. For Swiss stations, reliable sources (like data.sbb.sch and trafimage.ch), only enumerate the passenger tracks. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me amend this. Sometimes they include a non-revenue platform and track (Dienstperron), but never tracks that just pass through the station. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

For US stations, the standard is definitely to include all tracks in the infobox; if some tracks are non-passenger, they can be noted there or in the prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

US stations have countless examples of additional tracks not counted, but sometimes mentioned, too, which is why I asked the question. I strongly favor counting only tracks that actually interact with the station, as there are clear examples why you would not count bypassing tracks, track yards, and wyes. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is a "non-revenue" track? In the UK, the line between Reading and Didcot has four tracks, and some of the intermediate stations have four platforms, one per track; but whereas Pangbourne has only two platforms, the two non-platform tracks are used by just as many trains as the tracks through platforms 1 & 2 at Tilehurst, although very few trains stop at these platforms. Indeed, these two tracks are designated the "main line", and the tracks through platforms 3 & 4 at Tilehurst, which also serve the two platforms at Pangbourne, sre designated the "relief line". All four tracks are revenue-earning. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I think non-revenue track seems to be a U.S. term meaning not normally used by any services, whether stopping passenger, non-stop passenger or freight. I suppose lines with regular ECS such as those to depots and (to find a UK example) the west curve from Cannon Street would count. Certes (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Photographs as references

When can photographs (not necessarily images) be used as RS? Sort of a follow-up to a Help desk discussion "Photographs as references" [8] (I'm Moon Joon there). If, where, and when can photographs be used as RS?

If a photograph is used and clearly identified in a RS is the photograph itself by extension RS? Would museum collections be good? If so, how can they be used?

A photo would ref that the object existed ("what"). If you had a landmark you would know "where". If you had some type of time-mark you would know "when". If you could use the logo you would have "who". (I don't see "how" or "why" from a photo alone).

Slippery slope to OR. Can you use livery (color is so easy to change)? Layout (2-8-2 or B-B)? Manufacturer (not obvious with steam locos)? Fuel? Modifications? How far can you go? What is commonly recognized?

Photos could easily help with equipment rosters. Maybe infrastructure? Actually, almost anything physical. Any actions seem tough to me, you might have to infer what is happening or why.

I was thinking only of photos of the real world, not maps, charts, or re-creations (like models). I would think an actual photo could show who owned what when and where. Maybe details. Maybe more.

I haven't seen photos used or discussed. Rather than going to Commons or some RS board I thought I would mention it here. This seems like a good field, there are countless good photos of trains. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Photos are considered user generated content, and as such are not acceptable as references. I think it's important to illustrate articles with photos whenever possible, but they cannot be used as references. If the only way something can be sourced is through photos, that information is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Who considers them user generated? Nothing in your link says they are. Check my second paragraph. We are not talking blogs, we are talking RS. Edit add: Oh, I see. You are confusing the Help desk question about specific photos with this one about any photo in general. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I think if a photograph is presented as evidence in a reliable source, then it would be okay to cite that reliable source. A photograph independent of that context is a problem. We don't know if that photograph is representative, if everything in it was properly identified, etc. A picture is not worth a thousand words when it comes to reliability. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with Mackensen here. If Joe the Generic Railfan posts some photo he took on rrpicturearchives.com, we can't assume that's a reliable source. If a writer in Trains Magazine publishes a photo in the magazine with a caption as part of an article, I would consider that generally reliable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Words can lie; words can be mistaken; everybody generates them and everybody knows that. Numbers and pictures also can lie or err, and often do, and many people generate them. Unfortunately, some people assume either numbers or pictures can't lie and can't be mistaken. Sad, but true. However, if the words, numbers, or pictures come from a reliable source, then that's what they are. The word, the number, the picture is not a source; rather they are evidence that may be supplied by a reliable source, or not. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:GMB Class 71#Requested move 13 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:GMB Class 71#Requested move 13 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)