Talk:Passenger railroad car

message: I'm planning on moving the "variations" sections back into the main car types section.  Many of the cars in the main types section do not even exist anymore, while the "variations" are common today.  Why separate out the new from the old?  Don't understand at all.
Fourdee 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The regional bias is an issue though all of the rail related articles - most people only known the trains they see every day, and since the UK and USA are big English speaking countries there will be more editors from those places. I'm Australian BTW. Wongm (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Review

message: The image :Image:OP-14522.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:OP-14522.jpg

message: It's a no brainer - they are the same thing. I'll merge into this article since it's bigger, (and more people live in the US than UK? what do other english speaking peoples call them), also there is a presedent eg "railroad tie" over "sleeper", "switch" over "point" etc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: done that merge..
"More people live in the US than the UK" - arrrrggghhh!!! Give me something to bite on! As someone based in the US, this makes me ashamed of my fellow-countrymen because this is a typical arrogant American-centric viewpoint. There are MANY times more "International English" speakers (based more closely on English-English) than speakers of American-English. American-English, for example, is the only form of English that saw a unilateral change in spellings (thanks to Noah Webster for that particularly confusion). 
As for this particular page, as a rail enthusiast of many years, I can confirm that American rail terminology is in the minority worldwide, compared with the terms used by rail experts who speak international forms of English. Please also remember that the American rail system is much smaller (on a per-head-of-population-basis than in many other countries - partly because America decimated its rail systems following the advent of cheap air travel). So this arrogant decision to merge pages in order to make "carriage" or "coach" subservient to the predominantly American term, "car" (which most of the rest of the English-speaking world reserve to describe an automobile) - is indefensible. "Car" WAS used occasionally in British steam-era rail terminology but is virtually unknown in modern UK rail parlance.
A generic world-view page should be written in International-English, majoring on international terminology, not American terminology. It is then perfectly correct - under Wikipedia guidelines - to have an American "local-view" page written in American-English and giving more detail using American terms (such as car) and using American spellings (z instead of s, for example).
It is virtually impossible to accomplish this level of detail within one page because the rail terminology in America is so different in almost every respect to the rest of the world. Besides car/coach/carriage, some other examples based on comparisons with UK terminology: switch (US) v points (UK); railroad (US) v railway (UK); consist (US) v rake (UK); switcher (US) v shunter (UK) ... I could go on, but you get the point.
--621PWC (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: merge with [[coach (rail)]]

message: I deleted the subsection 'parlour car' because it's duplicated in the section Passenger_car_(rail)#Coach .. however that section calls them 'compartment cars', and I though parlour cars were of the 'open' type. Can someone (from North America) check this so it makes sense both in UK and USA English (Canadians, Indians, Barbadians too etc..)
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: The section on prisoner cars is interesting and I attempted to find which countries used them. I found many articles about a hoax where conspiracy theorists decried the existence of "prison cars" to be used for the mass incarceration of American citizens. The hoax arose around 2010; the railroad cars were in fact multi-tier auto cars with gratings on the sides. Probably trains are not used for transporting prisoners in the US because of the justified stigma of the Holocaust train. This forum post includes memories of ex-railway employees about the use of prisoner cars in the US in the past.
In Russia, however, rail travel is sometimes more practical than road travel, and that country does use prisoner cars. The car pictured has at least one visible end door. Note that the caption regarding the Arctic Sunrise is not related to the photo.
I didn't want to change "some countries" to "Russia and other countries" without evidence that other large countries do not also have prisoner cars, especially since the description of cars without end doors does not match. Roches (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner car 

message: The whole article needs to be redesigned to separate out practices from various countries.
Take 
(1) the simple use of the US term "Maintenance of Way" - in the UK thats "Engineering" (at various times, dependent on practices before and after nationalisation in 1947.
(2) Air-conditioning rebuilds took place in the late 1920's and early 1930's in the US, using ice as a coolant before more recent methodology. The result could be anything from a changed roof-line on both sides, partial over part, or "half-clerestory" on one side only (see Pullman "Dover Harbor (Harbour), The National Railway Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Chapter, Inc (see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/terry_browne/10466214536 )
More comments to fully after further study!
I note a previous comment (from 621PWC) criticising the US centric tone of the article - which whilst a little unparliamentary I cannot fault!
If it helps, as admin of a group studying just Clerestory Coaches the reader might like to study the group (see : https://www.flickr.com/groups/2031425@N22/pool/page1/?thumb=1 ), so that broader practices across many parts of the world can be elicited. (Most of North, central & South America, Much of Europe including the UK, the Levant, North & Southern Africa, some parts of Asia, and even Russia are covered).
Terry nyorks (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A world view would be good. Please feel free to modify the article as appropriate.  Stepho  talk  22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too general : the article tends to concentrate on US practice, and largely ignores practice in other countries 

message: For charabanc see Talk:Haarlem railway station#Charabanc Peter Horn User talk 16:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charabanc 

message: For Belmond Andean Explorer#Belmond Andean Explorer Cars could some one describe Spa car and Piano bar car? Peter Horn User talk 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Bar car does not quite fit unless one adds a section to that article. Also Aston Martin 2-Litre Sports mentions a spa car So I'll make that Spa car (rail)  Peter Horn User talk 20:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 'specialty passenger car' ?  Stepho  talk  11:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words a new article with two sections. What would there be in a spa car and in a piano bar car? Peter Horn User talk 16:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much to put in that hypothetical article. I would just give it a section 'specialty passenger car' within this article. Or just consider the spa car as a variant of the lounge car and the bar car as a variant of a dining car.  Stepho  talk  22:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that these cars (especially the spa car) appear to be specific to the train itself, I think they should be covered there. We can't write a general article about a one-off. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that full details should be at the specific train article. However, a quick mention here with a link to the train article would be good.  Stepho  talk  10:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two "new" types of passenger cars 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Passenger railroad car. There is support for both the proposed "Passenger coach" and this alternative title, and a general consensus to abandon the current clumsy disambiguation. However, this one has virtues of WP:CONSISTENCY with the main railroad car and WP:PRECISION against Coach (bus), and has gained sufficient support in the discussion.   No such user (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Passenger car (rail) →  – Procedural nomination in order to get this parallel discussion back on track. The claim in that discussion is that passenger coach is the more international term. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

text: pinging participants to category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. I have no knowledge in this field but either this page should be renamed to match the category, or the category to match this page. Having two different (actually three) names in use is bad. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Changed my vote to Rename to Passenger railroad car per jc37 Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 July 2021 

message: The article contains two separate paragraphs about prisoner cars (Passenger_car_(rail)#Prisoner_car and Passenger_car_(rail)#Prisoner_transport_car). I suggest that these are merged.
: This makes sense to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion that two paragraphs are merged 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Railroad car which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Railroad car which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress