Talk:Token (railway signalling)

message: I suggest that Automatic Token Exchange be merged into this article. There doesn't appear to be enough that can be said about Automatic Token Exchange to justify an article of its own. Of the three paragraphs that currently make up that article, the last is just a short description of the electric token system and nothing specific to the title subject. Most of the information given there already exists in the "Token" article. Signalhead 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Signalhead 18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge 

message: I notice that the IP poster who gave this article the  {confusing}  tag originally applied it to the "Intermediate token stations" section only. The whole article doesn't deserve the tag; I propose to put it back to its original position, subject to other editors' views. If I had the knowledge, I'd try to clarify the paragraph myself. --Old Moonraker 12:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back to original position. --Old Moonraker 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing? 

message: This text was recently added below the heading Token only:
However the system was used on long through lines as well; R H Dutton, Chairman of the London and South Western Railway explained in 1876 the slow journey time between Exeter and Plymouth by saying, "the cause of the delay is the stopping at every station on the staff system. That really does cause a great delay because if the staff is not there, the train must stop while a man is sent on a horse to get it [from the other end of the section]"; quoted in Williams.
I'm not convinced that the quoted text proves the use of the Token only system on a 'long through line'. It could have been a reference to the Staff and Ticket system, in which it's equally possible for the staff to be at the wrong end of the section if things don't run according to plan. Signalhead 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed use of the 'Token only' system on 'long through lines'. 

message: What's the scope of this article? It started off as an article about physical tokens (as per the title), but recently added material has expanded it into an article about methods of controlling single line railways generally. –Signalhead < T > 17:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the logical place would be at the single track (rail) article. I've made some edits and improvements there lately but it could do with more. G-13114 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope creep 

message: I have removed the derivation of Pilot as "Person In Lieu Of Token" as it lacked a reference. There seems to be a parallel with PICOP, a rail worker in charge during during engineering possession: "Person In Charge Of Possession", but as far as I can find the derivation of pilot is the standard one, originally from the nautical. Does anyone know more? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems likely that this is a backronym that's been concocted to help new railwaymen remember what a pilotman does. I've never seen it used officially.–Signalhead < T > 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person In Lieu Of Token 

message: I added an image (Electric Staff Working, token machine), but I cannot get it rotated correctly.  Perhaps somebody can figure that out.  Wiki editing is very hard to learn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmatxx (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had uploaded your image to commons: (which is the best place for free-use images such as this one), it would be easy - just pop a  at the top and it would be done automatically within a few hours. There is no automatic mechanism on Wikipedia, it's a manual task: fortunately there is a standard way of requesting this. Accordingly, I've added a , so hopefully somebody will notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's now the right way up. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't wish to carp, particular as I tried to fix this and couldn't, but is the 350px width giving us an overwhelmingly large image? I see that it's following the lede image, but that's too large, according to MOS:IMAGE. Floating image sizes now gives us 220px, larger than previously; would that be preferable? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd omit the image size from all images except the lead image; the "thumb" parameter picks up the default size, which may be amended in user prefs. Forcing an image size effectively says "user prefs are not always honoured". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now examined MOS:IMAGES and reset the lead image to 300px wide, the others to default thumbnail size. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Token machine image