Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2006, 3

message: As part of the update to the  template, I've setup the project's article assessment categories and intro page.  This assessment system is basically a copy of the assessment systems already used by some other WikiProjects, and I've gone through several hundred articles where the template is included and sorted them into the appropriate assessment categories (and found a few to nominate for GA status in the process).  If you've got some time, take a look at the list of articles in :Category:Unassessed rail transport articles and add the appropriate class parameter to the project banner template, following the guidelines on the assessment intro page.  The counts at the top of the intro page and the log at the bottom are both automatically updated once a day.
I will be monitoring this category as well and assessing more articles as I have time.  I haven't added the importance scale to the template yet; that will be the next major task once the quality assessments are under control. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious about the assessments process. What criterion is used to attribute an article to one or another sub project of WikiProject Trains as, as far as I've witnessed, articles have been tagged as maintained by one or another subproject when they are not. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trains article assessments 

message: There has been some debate recently about which term to use for the Train station article. The debate has largely centred on the British v American argument - yet it appears to me more one of simple common sense. The main and sub-categories are Railway station. In the article itself the term Railway station appears 3 times as frequently as Train station. Train station in this instance looks rather odd, lonely and somehow perverse. An argument that the use of Train station is older is possibly wrong because there is evidence that Railway station has been in use for longer than initially appears and might have been corrupted or deleted. Due to the awkward behaviour of RichardHarrold people may have got themselves into an entrenched situation which has blinded them to the simple common sense use of Railway station over train station. A glance at :Category:Railway stations shows how at this stage changing all the cats into Train stations would be more difficult than simply changing the name of the main category article. Lets have some plain and simple consistency here. SilkTork 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of style#National_varieties_of_English for how this should be handled.  Since this article isn't particular to either American or British stations, and since the first author of the page used the term "train station", then the term "train station" should be used.  It's okay to use the term "train station" in some articles/categories and "railway station" in other articles/categories.  JYolkowski // talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Railway station]] v [[Train station]] 

message: Hello all. Is there any all-wiki rule on how to name articles on particular train/railway stations? In most European countries for the sake of simplicity the local rail operators use local names in international planning. Thus the German DB informs of trains to Praha Hlavni Nadrazi rather than "Prager Hauptbahnhof" or "Prague Main Station", Belgian trains run through Warszawa to Moskva rather than through Varsovie to Moscu and so on. At the same time the naming scheme for cities is pretty clear that we should name the articles on cities with the English name where available. What solution should we adopt here? The question is by no means academic as my recent example of Warszawa Gdańska shows. 
Another issue is whether we should include the descriptive of "station" to the name of the article when there is none in the real life. For instance, should the article on Berlin Hauptbahnhof be moved to Berlin Hauptbahnhof Station or not? What do you think? //Halibutt 10:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hauptbahnhof is German for main station, so to include station would perhaps be redundant.  Having said that, In UK-based station articles, the article is normally Placename railway station to distinguish from other types of station.  regards, Lynbarn 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, frankly speaking we don't have any problem with stations located in English speaking countries, do we. //Halibutt 06:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I usually attach railway station to articles where it isn't perfectly clear that a railway station is the subject of the article. For example, Hannover Hauptbahnhof and Berlin Ostbahnhof would not need anything attached, same with Praha hlavní nádraží, as it is obvious they are railway stations. Fröttstädt railway station, on the other hand, is explicitly marked with railway station. 
There's borderline cases of course, but my suggestion would be to omit the "railway station" at the end whenever it is a well-known large station (either some sort of Hauptbahnhof or other large station) and the risk of having a name collide with another entity is comparably low. (Hamburg-Altona railway station would be sensible since there could be a Hamburg-Altona article at some point, whilst Warszawa Centralna has a pretty low risk of colliding with a Warsaw-related article. As I said, it's borderline.)
--doco (☏) 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And this is another issue: should we stick with the WP:UE at all cost and move Gare de L'Est to Paris East Station, or should we rather stick with the naming convention used by the railways? I'd say the latter is the way to go, but perhaps I'm alone on this one. In the case of Paris it's not that important as the name of the city is the same in French and in English, but let's take Warsaw for instance. The name of the city is Warsaw in English, but the railways (both Polish and foreign) stick with the name of Warszawa Centralna and not Warsaw Central Station, Warschau Hauptbahnhof or Varsava Hl.n.... //Halibutt 08:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station naming scheme 

message: A user is reverting edits to train articles. Please look at Rebecca's contributions list at least back to 23 September. I believe the original edits improve the articles and the reverts make the articles worse. I do not want to undo the reverts myself but other editors may wish to do so. bobblewik 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wasted enough of my precious hours on earth reviewing the changes involved to wish, frankly, that both of you would keep your mitts off the railroading articles. But I would have to oppose the way you went through and systematically changed "tractive effort" units from "lb" to "lbf". The correct English units measure is "pounds". Period. I've looked at some of the other changes you've made (and some of the argument about them) and frankly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if you applied yourself to substantive copyediting and writing and eschewed your program of computer-amplified nitpicks. Mangoe 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of them were on my watchlist and I've taken care of those that I agree with (and added  as appropriate).  Some of the changes that were reverted were only whether or not solitary years were linked.  Since I have no substantive opinion in that debate, I have left those specific changes alone.  It looks to me like Rebecca doesn't like any of your units edits (I see a lot of edits to ship articles, for example), and this dispute is better suited to another location.  Slambo (Speak) 12:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for undoing the reverts. As far as the other comments ('lb' v 'lbf' and formatting 'nitpicks') are concerned, I will copy the comments to wp:mosnum. That is probably the best place. See you there. bobblewik 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User reverting train edits 

message: There's a railroad company called ENSCO Inc..  They appear, among other things, to make high-tech railroad signaling and monitoring systems.  It is up for AfD (AfD page here).  I don't know much about this company and if what it does is worthy of an article so I haven't voted yet. Maybe someone here can give their wisdom on this.  --Oakshade 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've voted delete, as I can't see anything in the article that makes them notable. Someone from the US might know something more though. Thryduulf 07:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ENSCO Inc. AfD

message: Right now User:Attilios and I are on the verge of another edit war over locomotive and the various related type articles, particularly electric locomotive. The latter has a section on "advantages and disadvantages". The problem, it appears, is that electrification in Europe (particularly on the continent) and in North America took very different paths. It is proving difficult to write this in a way that is acceptable to him and also preserves an accurate picture of the NA situation. You can visit the articles for a better picture of the dispute, but suffice to say that he has dropped this into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks hopper.
What I would like to do is the following:
*Move all the comparison of type material into the main locomotive article, with particular emphasis on how one type spuerseded (or did not supersede) another, and with particular attention to regional variation.
*Possibly amplify the steam locomotive article with material on continental differences in the primary pattern. Also discuss phaseout of steam on the continent.
*Add material on European development to diesel locomotive (right now it's pretty much all USA).
*Add material on spread of electrification to electric locomotive (a chart of route-mi/km by year would be very nice).
We have a similar problem with railcar and the various multiple unit articles, except in this case the problem runs the other direction (the articles are very Eurocentric).
If people could comment, or better still, update the articles accordingly... Mangoe 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank Mangoe for having brought the dispute here. However, just a note: he wrote "write this in a way that is acceptable to him and also preserves an accurate picture of the NA situation". I want to say that I've never deleted material regarding US stuff (often added things to clarify that the view of the article conncerned mainly US situation), while He always reverted back my edits (I tried several version, all deleted.) I've recently added some material about electric locomotive history in Europe. Anyway, all articles lack stuff all around the world. The poorest is Steam locomotive: it should be renamed Steam locomotive in the US, as it is now. And all railway articles here are extremely sketchy from the technical point of view. Good work!! Attilios 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locomotive articles and comparison of types 

message: has tagged a large number of glossary pages with  today.  Looking at his contributions list, I don't think it'll be too long before it pops up on WP:AN/I or similar discussion areas.  In a quick search around the wiki, I don't see any further discussion on this matter, so I've removed the tag from the article. Slambo (Speak) 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology list move proposed 

message: I just got done making pages for all of the Passenger trains in both Arizona and Virginia.  I still have to go over them and make some minor corrections.  I made two categories one for Passenger train stations in Virginia and one for Passenger train stations in Arizona.  Im not sure which state I will work on next.  John R G 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger Trains 

message: A proposal has been made to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Improve.  I originally created this page as a place to list articles that need improvement.  With the updates to  and the automatically generated lists based on parameters to it, the Improve page has become superfluous.  Since this is a project-specific page, rather than going through WP:MFD, please join the talk page discussion there.  AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Slambo, could you take a look at a page like Northern Pacific Railway, which has an extensive list of references without citations.  What I'm getting at is, maybe the "This article lacks references" should read "This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate citations", or something to that effect...? Gws57 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, and after looking at a few more articles, the more I agree with your suggestion...  standby... Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Updated to "This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations."  I was originally going to suggest a second parameter for underreferenced, as opposed to unreferenced, articles, but this solution is much simpler.  Slambo (Speak) 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's the stuff.  Thanks! Gws57 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Improve]] 

message: Hi all. Do someone have a scheme of the limit size for railway vehicles in Germany and Russia? Those nations use a bigger encumbrance limit than most of Europe, but I can't find anything about them. I need these data for a new article for it.wiki. --Jollyroger 09:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limit size

message: Please, someone give a look HERE. If a native speaker can fix my poor translation, I will later move that to en.wiki and call for the Polski translation. This is part of a joint project to write articles on machines used both in Italy and in Poland. 
If someone speak Italian and wants to do a little translation works, on it.wiki we completed almost all the articles about the actual electric locomotives and coaches. Ask me if you want to bring some of them to en.wiki and find any trouble. --Jollyroger 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation fix

message: Can someone drop in on WP:CFD#Category:Loop_lines CfD for a discussion on a rename of :Category:Loop lines.  I'm not sure what the right rename should be and would like an expert to point the discussion in the correct direction.  Vegaswikian 06:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD help 

message: The stub category  is rather large now:  I've proposed some possible new sub-categories here:  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#US_rail_subtypes.  If anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, offers of help, please wade in.  Alai 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  has been created. Slambo (Speak) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US rail stubs large, sub type ideas floated 

message: Hey there. I've got a proposal: why don't we set up a Wikiproject:Trains newsletter, similar to the Wikipedia Signpost. Perhaps if we had this and filled it with a list of articles on the to-do list that are in need of work. As well as requests for editors to work on the to-do lists, we could have the latest rail news and Wikiproject:Trains news.
I would be willing to be the editor for the newsletter, although I would be looking for 1 or 2 willing Wikiproject:Trains memebers to help.
What do you think?
--Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Sunday, 22/Oct/2006 (UTC)
:I'd be interested in seeing an example.  If I can manage the time, I may be able to contribute as well.  Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter Proposal 

message: Please can someone give a look at FS ALn 772? It will need some major tranlsation fixes. Moreover:
# the Littorina page redirects to a shell. Littorine were the italian motor rail car in Fascist years, and remained as a name for three class of italian motorcars FS ALn 56, FS ALn 556 and FS ALn 772.
# I don't know how the train box template works on en.wiki. I have hidden the italian one, but it is still there, with some data not present in text. Can someone fix that too?
thanks pals --Jollyroger 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the first bits of  to it, but I'm not sure about the translations.  All of the parameters for this infobox are described with two examples on the template's talk page. Slambo (Speak) 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I did what I could. Some data are still hidden, but I have added a line to explain what they are. I don't know if they could fit in your template. Please give a look, else we could add them to text. Is translation from italian ok? C'mon, I can't believe I got so good at it! --Jollyroger 14:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworked the article and polished it somehow. Is that enough to remove the cleanup tag and re-assess? --BrokenArrow 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for help!

message: I just corrected a small error on the Challenger (passenger train) page--all dome cars were not removed in 1970, only the dome diners and I have the relevant Official Guides as a reference.  However, when I attempted to cite my source using the citation template, I couldn't get it to work.  What am I doing wrong?
Ehbowen 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  The problem was that you were using parenthesis (()) instead of curly braces {{}}. Slambo (Speak) 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New User - First Edit 

message: Another editor has decided to move Baldwin's article so the title has his middle name spelled out rather than as an initial.  I moved it back this morning seeing no consensus or policy for the original move, but the other editor has moved it back to the spelled out name again.  All of the reference material on a quick check through my library refers to him with a middle initial, if it's included at all.  I've asked the editor for his reasoning on the move, but I'd like to hear what other TWP members think of the page title.  Is there a consensus for the move or should it stay at its original title?  AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is ample precedent for either scenario, so if Matthias W. Baldwin is what is in "common" usage, then that's what the article title should be with other name forms entered as redirects (no Matthias Baldwin?).--Lord Kinbote 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only seen it with W. and not William.  I got a message from the other editor on agreement for the page name, and it will remain at W. for now, so we're back to Defcon 5 on this issue.  B-)  I'm still curious if William is spelled out in other references that I don't have access to.  The ones that I've got all say W. if they specify anything for a middle name.  Slambo (Speak) 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: on The Encyclopedia of Trains and Locomotives (by David Ross et al.), a very complete and reliable text (IMHO), it is stated as Matthias W. Baldwin (page 17, Lancaster 4-2-0) and later (page 23 Atlas 0-8-0) as Matthias Baldwin, but here the author seems to assume that the reader knows him. I would stick to the "W." version. --Jollyroger 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matthias W. Baldwin]] vs. [[Matthias William Baldwin]] 

message: Though I'm sure this is fairly far down the list of important train articles, the "Acquisitions" section said it was acquired by another company in 2063, which must be wrong. --GeoffreyVS 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a vandalism from an IP, fixed --Jollyroger 07:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Just wanted to let everyone know that I am in the process of setting up a new website devoted to North American passenger train timetables as published in the Official Guide of the Railways.  While it's not much to look at now, I'm hoping to add four to five timetables a week on a consistent basis. I do take special requests (as time permits); email me at the address on the main page of the site.  Currently I have at least one Official Guide from every year from 1954 through 1971 except 1955; I also have one each from 1889, 1916, 1938, 1941, 1947, and 1950. I hope that I can be of some help to everyone in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehbowen (talk • contribs) 02:14, October 27, 2006.
:Way cool, thanks for the heads up.  Looks like a good start over there.  I look forward to seeing a more densely populated database in the future.  B-)  Slambo (Speak) 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Resource (Timetables) 

message: Is there a list or database online of the divisions of the major U.S. railroads? For instance, I found out that the Interstate Railroad is now part of the NS Pocahontas Division, but I'd like to know all the lines that form that division. --NE2 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found , which is pretty useful but has some errors (for instance it lists one crossing as being B&O). --NE2 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's pretty hard to deal with. Does anyone know if it's possible to view the data in a GIS viewer? It includes latitude and longitude fields. --NE2 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divisions of major railroads

message: The Clinchfield Railroad is now CSX's Kingsport and Blue Ridge Subdivisions. Would it be better to let Clinchfield Railroad cover the history and write articles about the subdivisions, or to put everything in the former name? --NE2 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I normally write articles on fallen flags as histories of those specific railroads and leave the bulk of discussion about what happened later to the successor line articles.  For example, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway covers the history while the Santa Fe was a separate entity, and BNSF Railway picks up the history from the 1995 merger forward. Slambo (Speak) 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about organization

message: There are two items of importance that you might not have noticed with this WikiProject.
First, I've been working with another editor to get a bot that will automatically update the list of articles within the scope of the project for the Recent changes link on the main project page.  On a weekly interval, the bot will build a list of all articles with  on their talk pages and store it on the recent changes list.
The second items regards a new entry in the project navigation box (which is now at the top of many of the project pages, like on this page).  The Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style (MOS) link is the newest addition.  Hearing no objections to anything on the MOS page that I mentioned many months ago (see previous discussions above), I made a bold move and moved my proposed page to the live address.  The guidelines there are based on what I've seen in looking at almost 8,000 articles while doing the assessments.  If there's something in there that needs to change, please speak up.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled editing, already in progress.  B-)  Slambo (Speak) 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two items of project matters 

message: I think there would be much value in this, there is certainly a great need to add proper images (photos) to rail-related articles and to replace fair use with free images wherever possible. Any interest?--Lord Kinbote 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, :Category:Rail transport articles needing images is quite large (sure, it's still under 1000, but it's over 800 already).  And that's just the articles that don't have any images at all. Slambo (Speak) 20:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hearing no objections, I've created the task force page. Slambo (Speak) 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image task force

message: Hello all, I just wanted to put a link here to my collection of railroad-related photos: http://lensovet.rrpicturearchives.net; please look through the photos there and let me know which ones you would like me to upload. I will then upload the photos to the Commons using my license. Also, there might be some photos on http://lensovet.byethost12.com/photos/gallery2/; if there are any photos you would like to see on wiki that are there, let me know as well.
Thanks! —lensovet–talk – 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railroad pictures 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Whyte notation about the need for separate articles on each of the types listed on .  Please join the discussion there.  AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whyte type detail articles 

message: FYI, I have two articles that you may wish to incorporate into your works.  In both cases, light rail is among the options being considered.  The CCT is in need of more information and the Red Line is in need of a cleanup.  I added relevant tags to the discussion pages and have added a bit to the CCT, but do not know much more about either project nor too much about trains in general to provide much further information -- so I'm just passing on the work to you folks.  Enjoy! --Thisisbossi 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corridor Cities Transitway and Red Line (Baltimore) 

message: Another editor added the  template on Canadian National Railway suggesting that the content there should be merged into Canadian National Railway Company.  Please join the discussion on the proposed destination's talk page. Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN article merge proposed 

message: See Template talk:Infobox UK station#Bilingual station names for my proposed way to standardise the formatting of stations that have names in more than one language (e.g. English and Welsh names). Thryduulf 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to UK stations infobox

message: There are two list articles in the TWP "Requests for assessment" queue, but I'm unsure how list articles fit into the current grading scheme.  Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing list articles 

message: I'm working on an SVG map of the CSX network from the BTS data and other sources, and have a few questions about what they own:
*Baldwinsville Subdivsion: the data shows the part from Fulton, NY to Oswego, NY as "NM" with CSX trackage rights
*CL&W Subdivision: part of it at Lorain, OH is shown as "LT" (Lorain Terminal?) with CSX and NS trackage rights
*Harrisburg Subdivision (high line in Philadelphia): does CSX or Conrail own this?
*Landover Subdivision, Pope's Creek Subdivision, and Herbert Subdivision: does CSX still operate over the Northeast Corridor from DC to Bowie, MD and then south over the Pope's Creek and Herbert Subdivisions? The data shows the Pope's Creek as NS only and the Herbert as "USG" with CSK trackage rights.
*Lurgan Subdivision: the data shows the line north af Chambersburg as "PSCC" - what is this?
*Memphis Terminal Subdivision: is the north-south piece parallel to Scott Street owned by CSX or UP?
*Niagara Subdivision: the data shows NS ownership with CSX trackage rights on most of the line between downtown and the Belt Subdivision
*Toledo Terminal Subdivision: how far west from Hallett, OH does CSX own (jointly with NS?)?
*Trenton Subdivision: are any parts of this owned by SEPTA?
*Does CSX have overhead trackage rights over the Buckingham Branch Railroad from Clifton Forge to Richmond or only to Doswell?
*Does CSX have trackage rights along the NS Guyandotte River Branch between Gilbert, WV and Gulf Junction, WV?
If anyone can clarify any of these issues, it would be most appreciated. Thank you. --NE2 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat to my surprise, it appears that CSX owns the High Line. This is probably related to the pre-Conrail-breakup plan where the City of Philadelphia wanted to have the East Side Line pulled up entirely and reroute all CSX traffic over the High Line...nowadays, both lines are in fairly active service. The Trenton Sub runs over SEPTA Nice Jct. to Cheltenham Jct. and Neshaminy to CP Wood; north of CP Wood is owned by CSX, but SEPTA maintains the catenary and has dispatching control to West Trenton. Choess 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about Neshaminy to Wood?  shows a separate CSX track there. Also, how sure are you about Nice Junction being the limit? It looks like the tracks are separate until Newton Junction. --NE2 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also see , which doesn't appear to show any trackage rights. --NE2 09:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren't already using them I found the CSX state pages at http://www.csx.com/?fuseaction=general.state_facts to be useful for fact checking.  Thanks for  doing this, I think it's a definite improvement over the one I did.  Kmusser 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for anyone familiar with CSX operations

message: There is yet another discussion on using "(U.S.)", "(United States)", or even ("United States of America)" as disambiguators instead of "(US)" as in current practice.  Please join the discussion.  Slambo (Speak) 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about disambiguators again! 

message: I don't know anything about the subject, but others here may be interested. --NE2 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an interestng little narrow gauge railway.  Did some Wikifying, added WikiProject Trains stamp and external links/refs.  I'll do some more work in the next day and then contest the prod. Others are encouraged to make more improvements. --Oakshade 02:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ashorne Hall Railway]] tagged for deletion

message: The article reads like he's just a random historian. --NE2 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[Rowlee Steiner]] notable?

message: The article titled 'Railroad engineer' is subject to some discussion on it's talk page. Perhaps others with an interest in trains would like to put their input.
You can read the talk page but in summary, the debate so far seems to be:
* any term without the use of 'engineer' in the title is preferable (e.g. train operator or train driver) as 'engineer' is misleading and confusing - they are not professional engineers, as is suggested by the use of the word.
* 'train driver' does not describe in full such a persons role (they do not only drive trains)
* 'railroad engineer' is misleading as such persons do not engineer railways.
* 'train operator' is confusing as it is a similar phrase to 'train operating company'
There are some other comments there such as "some US regulations say it's called an engineer", but the US government does not determine Wikipedia naming policy and has no oversight over what terms are called in the English language as a whole (at least outside of the USA).
Anyway - get stuck in.--jrleighton 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Renaming Debate 

message: There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be. 
The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of rail accidents

message: This is an AfD grouping that might be of interest here.  There are 33 railroads up for deletion (yes, 33).  These are either of defunct railroads or ones that were just proposed.  All the articles seem to only be excerpts from old Florida law archives and are not exaclty helpful and are frequently confusing as to indicate if the railroads were actually built/operated or not.  --Oakshade 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key of the Gulf Railroad|Afd forKey of the Gulf Railroad and many others]]

message: I've been thinking about the structure of categories for major railroads, like :Category:Pennsylvania Railroad or :Category:New York Central Railroad. Can I get some comments on whether the following is a good idea:
*Only major subsidiaries get their own subcategories, which follow the same rules as the main category. For instance, NYC has the Big Four and B&A, both of which were known as those names after being absorbed into the NYC. The Nickel Plate category would not be a subcategory of NYC, since it was split off.
*A single subcategory (maybe "railroads related to the New York Central Railroad") is made to contain every railroad company that the main railroad "had dealings" with - leases, mergers, ownership, but not trackage rights - so the Nickel Plate article would be in this category for NYC. These articles also go in the "state railroads" categories.
*Another subcategory ("New York Central Railroad lines") is made for articles about lines - for the NYC, this would include articles like Niagara Subdivision and Dayton District.
*Other subcategories, such as stations, bridges/tunnels, and passenger trains, can also be created. The names should be standardized.
Thank you. --NE2 07:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of categories

message: London Underground is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[London Underground]]

message: HSR-350x is a recent Korean High-speed rail, developped by KRRI. I'm working on this article called Korean G-7, which talks about HSR 350x. You can help developing this article, if you like. Nevertheless, I need help uploading image for HSR-350x.  --User: Kingj123 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image for [[HSR-350x]]

message: I've been concentrating on articles about lines (:Category:CSX Transportation lines, :Category:Norfolk Southern Railway lines, etc.) rather than the railroad companies that built and operated them. I believe that they should be mostly separate, even where the extents are the same, since the railroad company usually had some operating history before the line became part of a bigger system. However, in cases where the bigger company leased the smaller one from opening day, there's usually almost nothing to say about the smaller company. In these cases, like Bergen County Line and Bergen County Railroad, should the railroad redirect to the line? (This probably isn't the best example, since the Bergen County Line has been extended.) --NE2 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a fundamental issue no one has resolved. This side of the pond, we have a long list of train companies operating on a particular stretch of track. But the stretch of track has a designation (eg SO400) but also a service name (eg Channel Tunnel Rail Link). But generally speaking only the latter has the article and the detail of the track itself (stations, tunnels, bridges, etc). Problems then come in when many services run over the same line (in urban areas approaching the main stations). I don't think there is an answer out there so bodge it but be consistent! Pickle 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily in the U.S. there always seems to be a name rather than an alphanumeric code for a line, at least with one of the big companies. --NE2 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lines vs. companies

message: :Category:Baltimore and Ohio Railroad includes a number of towns along the line. Is this a good idea? --NE2 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Towns in categories?

message: There was an AFD discussion that affects a number of articles within this project's scope.  The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key of the Gulf Railroad was to merge the associated articles into List of defunct Florida railroads.  We need a volunteer to perform the merge on the articles listed in the AFD.  Slambo (Speak) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge editor needed 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 10#Category:Passenger train stations in Arizona is a proposition to have consistent names for the subcategories of :Category:Railway stations in the United States. Posting here to alert members of this project. Tinlinkin 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: There is a large consensus (including myself) already to rename them into a consistent naming scheme.  So far, it looks like "Category:Railway stations in region" is the preferred scheme. Slambo (Speak) 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. station categories consistency 

message: After discussion over the summer about requiring inline citations and some time of very little activity on current GA listed rail transport articles, several articles within this project's scope are now likely to be delisted from GA status.  I've tried to solicit assistance (see above) in September on improving these articles to current GA standards.
I made a list at that time of some tasks that need to be completed.  Please take some time as soon as possible to "adopt" an article and help to get it up to current GA requirements. Slambo (Speak) 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially many current rail transport GAs to be delisted from GA 

message: Union Station has an additional line that could be documented... CDOT's Shore Line East. just adding s-rail and s-line invocations failed horribly so I am guessing there is more you have to do?  Does CDOT need to be set up like MetroNorth and Amtrak are? ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I actually had gotten the page to the point of displaying the red links in your example, but abandoned it. I should have done it in a sandbox instead, and will, when I get a chance. Ultimately, would this set of setups be done for every commuter authority? (METRA, SEPTA, MBTA, etc etc...) There are a lot. Who decides on the colors to use? (MBTA probably ought to be purple for example) ++Lar: t/c 08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some authorities like Metra use different colors for each route. For the others I guess we can choose a color from their logo, or a color that they use (like purple for MBTA). --NE2 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional lines

message: On the Long Island Rail Road, should we use services or lines? At Jamaica, there are really only three lines to the east, but ten services are included. It is very hard to verify with the timetables that the next stop on Ronkonkoma Branch trains is indeed New Hyde Park - in other words that all Ronkonkoma Branch trains skip Hollis, Queens Village, Bellerose, and Floral Park. And this may change with the next schedule change; in other words, someone has to go through and check each time new schedules come out. But it's very clear that the next Main Line station is Hollis. I don't know how well "Main Line" is known to the public though. Does anyone have any ideas? --NE2 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished implemented it; what do you think? The only places that turned out a bit strange were Babylon and Valley Stream, since they are places where lines change names rather than branch off. At Valley Stream I had to fudge a bit; there are two weekday outbound West Hempstead trains that actually run through from Jamaica and stop at Valley Stream. But it was already complicated enough, and they do essentially become Far Rockaway Branch trains there. --NE2 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't had a chance to go over all stations and the templates, but I'm satisfied for the most part. A couple of things I would add, though: In Jamaica (LIRR station), I would add all services that would be accessible (e.g. in the Main Line box, I would add Port Jefferson Branch, Ronkonkoma Branch and Oyster Bay Branch to the existing Hempstead Branch. I am not sure if all Babylon Branch trains [that don't stop at St. Albans and are more likely to stop at Lynbrook instead] use the Montauk Branch or the Atlantic Branch between Valley Stream and Jamaica.). Similarly, I would also mention Ronkonkoma Branch in the Main Line box for Mineola station. Tinlinkin 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to add Ronkonkoma Branch to Mineola but nowhere else that it stops inside Hicksville? And if you do want to add it everywhere else, how do you suggest finding quickly what all those stations are? At Jamaica, how would you quickly determine what the next station for each service is? And when someone gets there, and doesn't see the service, they'll probably be more confused than if they had to follow the line the service uses from Jamaica. --NE2 12:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, not pointing out all services from a station in the infobox would look like the missing services are unavailable from the station. Printed public timetables show Mineola as a regular stop for Ronkonkoma trains, and in fact, most Ronkonkoma trains stop there on weekends and weekday off-peak. Ronkonkoma trains are normally express from Jamaica (actually oftentimes at Hillside Facility) to Mineola and Hicksville. The only difference between branch services regarding next stations is express services. Perhaps the situation at Jamaica is not a case for brevity, but I  am happy with using the 3-line format to the east. I'm sure I'm not going to come up with an answer to all possiblities. Tinlinkin 13:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the format is by lines, with services included more as a benefit to those following along with the official map. Someone wanting the Ronkonkoma Branch can easily see that the Hempstead Branch is the one to take out of Jamaica. --NE2 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but yes, Hollis (or again, Hillside Facility) is next for the Main Line from Jamaica, served by Hempstead Branch, not Ronkonkoma. I don't think you have started converting SEPTA stations yet. But the succession boxes are service-based there. How would you handle stations like Temple University, Wayne Junction and SEPTA service at 30th Street Station? With services, it is easy to delineate what stations are next. If there is confusion using lines for an infobox, maybe reverting back to services as the infobox criteria may be better. Tinlinkin 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SEPTA publishes separate timetables for the full length of each service. But in the case of the LIRR, finding all the stations served by Ronkonkoma Branch trains requires combing through three separate timetables (times four for the direction and weekday/weekend split) and comparing train numbers. This is not something we should have to do every time a new schedule is released. --NE2 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LIRR schedules do not change drastically. When a revision comes, they come about 4-5 times a year, there is a page posted on the LIRR service advisories and "Keeping Track" and most of those revisions are concerning train times or bus substitutions--hardly encyclopedia worthy. The weekend skip-stop on the Main Line was the most recent major service change that affected train stops, and those were noted in the two links above as they happened. Off-peak weekdays and all-day weekends are typical services, and changes for these services are easy to track, even amongst mulitple timetables. Is one train that breaks the typical service pattern for the MAin Line notable? Tinlinkin 14:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4-5 times a year is a lot to check to make sure one tiny thing has not changed. If we are going to include stops on "foreign trackage", how are we to decide which ones to include? Anything but all is arbitrary and would likely be more confusing than the current layout, and all is hard to keep track of. Would it be acceptable to simply change the text in the middle, so on Floral Park (LIRR station), the top box says not only Port Jefferson Branch but also Oyster Bay Branch and Ronkonkoma Branch? Putting these in italics would probably make it clear enough that they run along the line but may not stop at this particular station. --NE2 14:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that LIRR service changes are as difficult to keep track of or document as you think. I hope to hear what other editors think as I don't know what else to add. Tinlinkin 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The service advisory about the new timetables simply says that "the new timetables reflect added service during the holiday season." This doesn't look easy to keep track of. --NE2 15:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That refers to extra trains that run on specific days around every major holiday. Does it say anything about changes to regular service? No. Is that worth mentioning in Wikipedia? Perhaps if you want to say "Extra service is provided the day before holidays on the following lines..." but I'm not gonna do it. That's the extent of the MTA message. There's going to be another press release on New Year's service. Is that worth getting worked up for? I hope not. Tinlinkin 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More about services vs. lines

message: The book was published in 1946. Any works published first in the U.S. and published before 1964 are out of copyright unless their copyright was renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office. There is a database of copyright renewals at , and the PRR Centennial History's copyright was not renewed.
Would anyone be interested in helping to OCR it for Wikisource? Someone has scanned it and uploaded it to . --NE2 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PRR Centennial History is out of copyright

message: Hi. Long time ago I put a question on the talk page of this article which isn't answered yet. Does anyone know (or can find out) which gauge the narrow gauge line of the Grafton Centre Railroad had? Grtx, --Thogo (Talk) 12:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the book is sitting right next to my chair right now, I took a look in American Narrow Gauge Railroads (George W. Hilton, Stanford University Press).  The Grafton Centre Railroad is discussed on page 418, but there is no mention of what gauge it used.  Perhaps an inquiry to the Kalmbach Memorial Library would find the answer? Slambo (Speak) 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grafton and Upton Railroad]] 

message: This list has been nominated for deletion. While it is not strictly a rail subject, it is closely related. --NE2 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses]] on AFD

message: I just read about a patent issued to Google for the look of the search results.  What interested me more in the story and what we can use here is the Google Patent Search.  The about page lists some helpful searching tips too. Slambo (Speak) 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet they planned that, so anyone that read about their patent would also see that they were doing good. :| --NE2 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrmmm... Vedy interestink...  Actually, I had thought of that.  I think I've been reading too much about the General Motors streetcar conspiracy lately.  B-)  Slambo (Speak) 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New patent search resource 

message: I created this template for use on individual freight lines (rather than companies): see it in use on Fort Wayne Line. --NE2 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:infobox rail line freight]]

message: On December 10th, Algoma Central Railway was nominated for delisting from Good Article status due to its lack of citations.  Today I added seven citations from four sources to the article, however if anyone else has contributions that could help the article keep its Good Article status, please feel free to lend a hand!  --Kralizec! (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Algoma Central Railway]] nominated to lose [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status 

message: Would it be reasonable to make some sort of offshoot of the reference desk for rail-related questions, so those with information can help those who need information for an article they are writing? --NE2 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could easily create a project subpage for this; however, seeing no questions in the current reference desk queue that ask about railroads or railways, I don't see a strong need for it yet (and I'd love to be proven wrong on this one).  Since I don't monitor the existing reference desk, the need for a trains-specific help desk isn't as apparent to me. Slambo (Speak) 19:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd use it, both to ask and answer questions, but if no one else would, it wouldn't be useful. --NE2 20:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trains reference desk?

message: I've added a list of presidents to Long Island Rail Road, and there's a gap between the 1920s and 1949. The PRR directly operated the LIRR from 1929 to 1949; is this why there's a gap? --NE2 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a likely reason.  I've seen some instances where a parent company will install a president for a subsidiary (can't think of any off the top of my head right now), but that seems more the exception than the rule in the roads that I've looked at so far.  Sometimes you'll find a managerial title other than president fulfilling those duties for the subsidiary, so we could list the most senior manager and properly label it to fill the gap. Slambo (Speak) 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does a leased railroad have presidents?

message: I'm currently rewriting and expanding Long Island Rail Road, and I seem to be better at describing history of construction than general history of operations once construction ends. Is anyone interested in helping out? I'm hoping that we can eventually bring this up to featured article standards. To that end, it might need more reliable sources to replace the PRR Chronology. --NE2 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be a number picture books about the LIRR, and I don't know if they are useful. One would have to research newspaper and magazine articles, I would imagine, to fill in most of the desired info. The electrification of the Main Line (Ronkonkoma) in 1988 and the subsequent ridership growth should have great media coverage. Tinlinkin 12:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue is that most of the details should be in the articles about the lines; only general "milestones" should be in the main article. --NE2 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If I don't write any articles, I'll gladly throw some info your way. I've got a few photos of Medford & Port Jefferson Stations that I took, and I can find some links on other stations. FYI, Patchogue Station is on Division Street between West Avenue, and South Ocean Avenue(not "Ocean Avenue" like the MTA site says). DanTD 15:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Patchouge-Medford Library's Local History Department has a huge aerial photo of Medford Station from the early-1960's with two tracks going over NY 112. If I can get back up to New York, I'd try to get the photo for you. If not, you're going to have to deal with them yourself. DanTD 15:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've requested a few books about the LIRR through interlibrary loan; hopefully I'll at least get "Steel Rails to the Sunrise". --NE2 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone want to help on LIRR?

message: It would be helpful if in assessing and improving railroad articles, editors made sure to mention whether railroads provide or have provided passenger or freight service, or both.  This basic information is often missing.  If there are major customers (a named population center, a large industrial customer, a certain industry clustered in a geographic area), that would also be very informative.  Thanks! -- Beland 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the assumption is that it provided both; it's a rare thing for a railroad (pre-1940s) to have had only one, and thus that will probably be mentioned. --NE2 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railroad articles 

message: 10 Seoul, Korea rail stations are up for deletion.  Like alot of stations on this project, there isn't alot of text in the article, but alot of infobox information.  I think like all articles like this, they can be expanded over time, but there are many in WP who feel that they're not inherently notable.  Others on this project might want to weigh in on them.  --Oakshade 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singil Station]]

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards