Talk:List of passenger trains

message: Need to make clear -- are these famous physical trains, ie an engine, or a famous train route?
: It seems to be primarily routes, as the summary says.  It's totally inconsistent though, as the Shinkansen is included (a type of train, not a route necessarily), but the TGV is not.  I'd think the TGV is much more famous than the Intercity 125, which is included.   This type of article is always going to be problematic on Wikipedia Jpp42 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely entries like Mallard would be more appropriately shown in the famous locomotives category?  Or how about a famous locomotives list?  I'm not sure about the Bullet train or TGV, though. Nsorelli 13:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

message: I would like to add a little section about the Yellow train, or yellow canary. This train is in the South Eact of France, just north of the Spanish border. The track is a relatively short run, just 63 kilometres.But it climbs from very close to sea level to nearly 1600 metres.
The line was built in 1903 and it is a very dramatic and enjoyable journey.
Would appreciate any thoughts on the value of this addition
Collieman
: The article on Yellow Train is pretty short - maybe you could help to expand it?  And what makes this train "famous" - this is a much higher standard than "notability" keep in mind.  There really should only be a few famous trains. Jpp42 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an article about this on Wikipedia yet?  Jpp42 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous trains - yellow train 

message: The title of this page has been changed from famous trains list to historical trains on the grounds that it is less subjective.  I'm not sure that's right, but I think use of the word historical (that is, belonging to the past, not the present) is incorrect.  Many of these trains still run and indeed, like Eurostar, are recent additions.  I agree we can argue about whether a particular train is famous or not, so perhaps notable is a more appropriate if less impressive title.  Personally I'd be happier with famous.  Anybody else care?  Nsorelli 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "historical" dramatically broadens the scope of the article - almost to the point of uselessness.  Sure, "famous" has a degree of subjectivity to it, but we can probably source comments attesting to the train's fame in comparison to other services.  There's no way I could sneak something like the Culverden Express into the article - a train so poorly known that even books on New Zealand railways mention it in passing while giving just about every other express substantially more attention.  However, the Culverden Express is quite legitimately a "historical" train.  And if it could be put on here, so could any other historical service and it would quickly become a sprawling list .  Worse still, it would be barely distinct from List of named passenger trains and a merge would probably be justified. - Axver 06:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll revert it back to the former name then, although the list criteria itself seems subjective as well. The advantage that List of named passenger trains has is the title clearly defines the contents, which is important in list naming. Masaruemoto 07:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous trains - or historical? 

message: "rail travel was the predominant means of transportation for long-distance travel - and was therefore most common only for the wealthy or those with an urgent personal or business need."
The preceding sentence makes very little sense.  What it the intended meaning ?  It appears to be a complete non sequitur to me.  During the 1860-1960 heyday of rail transport,  it was indeed the predominant means of transport.   How is therefore causative of being most common only for the wealthy or on urgent business ?   Is the author of this sentence trying to imply that the poor did not generally travel at all,   or that they used other means of transport ? Eregli bob (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, it's a ridiculous assertion; railroads were the Interstate Highway system of the time, everybody traveled on them.  So I deleted the sentence; then I realized the rest of the statements in that paragraph were also wrong or misleading, and had no real bearing on the topic of this article, so I deleted all but the first sentence.  It's a silly article to begin with, because there are no stated criteria from reputable sources to define "famous trains"; the whole article really should be deleted, imho.  Textorus (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence makes very little sense 

message: OK, so I've gone ahead and merged as much information as I could find sensible homes for into the sub-lists of Lists of named passenger trains.  (Those lists were something of a mess themselves, but that's a topic for another talk page.)  I didn't merge anything about rolling stock, train operators, railway lines (i.e. stretches of track) or anything without an article.  --RFBailey (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the Belgian trains are missing from the European list. I haven't checked any of the ones for other countries, like South Africa or New Zealand yet. ----DanTD (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there may have been some I overlooked, for which I apologise.  Perhaps you could add them?  --RFBailey (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect in place