This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure about the notability standards, since reporting marks have only been used since the early 20th century. Reporting marks seem to be assigned to any campany that is operating trains. Would it be reasonable to extend this back to the 19th century? Would it also be reasonable to include companies that stopped construction (South Pennsylvania Railroad, for instance) or were taken over by another company before beginning operations? In both cases, merging is obviously needed for some minor early lines. But would it be acceptable to simply say "any railroad that started construction work"? --NE2 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Part of the style guide suggests not refering to a peice of equipment as she. Yet it has always been customary to personify certain inanimate objects. This comes from Navy tradition and goes back hundreds of years. In languages that use gender for common nouns, locomotives and other vehicles almost invariably use a feminine form. When refering to a specific peice of equipment 'she' is a valid term. Have a look at the wiki pages for other locomotives E.g. Ja1250, NZR R class or do a search for 'she locomotive'and see how many hits you get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.147.198 (talk • contribs) 14:00, April 20, 2007
In Europe, EU legistlation has caused that ownership and management of the railway infrastucture and the railway operators (i.e the companies that operate trains to provide the freight and passenger services) have been separated from each other. I think this should somehow be taken into account in the structute of articles about railroads. The current style guide appears to imply that railway operator owns and manages infrastucture of it's own, which is not any more always the case.
Sivullinen 12:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a template for citing timetables, employee or public? I've looked but don't seem to see one. --plaws 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to write an article on Tinley Park - 80th Avenue (Metra)|Tinley Park - 80th Avenue (Metra) station, and one source that I have on it contains an article that was reposted on the "Railroad.net" forum. The problem is, I can't for the life of me find out where this article was originally published. Here's the link(http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=478329&sid=55f4f3937d836f1014d50cd0838b4819), and he're the article;
The train's still in the station
Rebuilding plans on hold at Tinley Park Metra stop - for now
September 20, 2007
By Kristen Schorsch, Staff writer
For 33 years, Cathy Lia has had to lift herself onto the Metra train at 80th Avenue and Timber Drive in Tinley Park. The buckling platform beneath her is marked with divots and low points that force riders to grab and pull.
"It's getting harder and harder to get on that train," Lia, 53, said Wednesday morning, armed with coffee and a bag of goodies, compliments of the village of Tinley Park. "You have to literally pull yourself up."
Lia would like a new train station, but most of all, the Orland Park resident wants a new platform.
So does Donna Herman 42, of Tinley Park, who said she has sprained her ankle twice getting on and off the train.
"When you jump down, you jump into the potholes," Herman said while waiting for her ride to downtown Chicago.
Tinley Park officials want commuters to know they feel their pain. That's why Mayor Ed Zabrocki and more than a dozen village employees arrived at the station before dawn Wednesday.
It was part commuter appreciation day, part campaign effort.
Commuters received free coffee and doughnuts as well as a bag of pamphlets telling them about Tinley's efforts to rebuild the more than 25-year-old station. Other pamphlets reminded riders to take the 1-year-old Veterans Parkway from 183rd Street to shave minutes of their trip to the station. Others encouraged commuters to sign up for a community e-mail that would provide information about the 80th Avenue station, including construction updates and special events.
As riders waited for trains, Zabrocki chatted with them, telling them about the financial questions that are holding up improvements.
The 80th Avenue station serves about 3,000 commuters a day and is the fourth-busiest station on the entire Metra system.
So far, Tinley Park has set aside about $1 million for the project and has secured a $700,000 federal grant, village manager Scott Niehaus said.
Metra has to pay for a new building and platform, which is estimated to cost about $2 million. Tinley will cover the cost of any upgrades.
But Metra, which is part of the Regional Transportation Authority, is in no shape to pay its share. The RTA has threatened to slash services and hike fares to deal with a more than $200 million budget deficit.
In the past three years, Metra has had to divert about $100 million from capital projects like train station improvements to pay for day-to-day operations because of a lack of money from the state, spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said.
Illinois senators this week offered a plan to create new casinos and expand existing ones to help foot the bill for mass transit in Chicago as well as pay for construction and education. The plan would provide about $200 million for the RTA, which oversees the Chicago Transit Authority, Pace and Metra, but the agency would have to pay the money back.
"Any funding is helpful; however, what is really needed to sustain our system is a long-term capital program," Pardonnet said. "We have said that from the start. ... We're still hopeful that Springfield will come through."
That means projects have to wait.
Tinley Park has been asking for a new station at 80th Avenue for at least two years. It aims to double the size of its nearly 1,500-square-foot terminal, where people snag coffee and wait for rides, and replace the aging platform. In 2005, a lack of state funding delayed the project.
A look at the station during early morning rush hour provides a glimpse of why the village is calling for improvements.
As trains barrel down the tracks, commuters line up shoulder to shoulder against a fence. When they board trains, they first look down at their footing, then grab a rail to pull themselves up.
Inside the one-story station building, five benches that can fit about four people each line white, barren walls. Riders can buy a cup of joe for 60 cents or 75 cents, depending on the size.
Marcia Partipilo, 45, of Homer Glen, has been serving coffee from a small counter since the brick building opened more than 25 years ago. She said the structure recently received new windows, a new roof and a fresh coat of paint inside.
Partipilo understands people might want a few extras at a train station, but she said commuters spend only five minutes or so coming and going.
"Why spend the money?" she said. "Just beautify it a little more."
Tinley Park Trustee Greg Hannon said new amenities at 80th Avenue would be similar to those at the Oak Park Avenue train station, which was renovated in 2003.
The $4.4 million makeover included a building with an observation tower and facade that matches the architecture of the historic Tinley Park downtown district. A full-service kitchen serves hot coffee, breakfast and lunch. Commuters also received new lighting and surveillance cameras.
The 80th Avenue station, though, would be built to match the surrounding residential neighborhood, park and nearby public library, Hannon said. The Tinley Park Public Library is a prairie-style brick building with slanted roofs similar to nearby homes. The station probably won't serve hot meals, but it will have coffee, Hannon said.
"It doesn't need to be a central focal point like Oak Park Avenue," Hannon said.
The village plans to start designing the station so it can begin construction when money becomes available, Niehaus said. The project likely will cost about $4 million.
Will somebody tell me where this was published? Or will it be okay if I just use the forum as a reference? ----DanTD (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the "Standard subsections" chapters of "Manual of style" are quite weak. To make a resonable article e.g. about a railrod, far more sections than the given four are needed. Look e.g. at the featured articles Rail transport in Romania, where there are 9 main sections, or Rail transport in India, which has 16 top level chapters, and compare these to the "Standard subsections" of "Manual of style". IMHO this part of "Manual of style" needs some attention to be usable and to be able to unify the stucture of the articles. --Sivullinen (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why it is necessary to change the titles of articles (move) which have "&" in the title to "and". It's nice to see some consistency and articles should of course display the correct name - but in many cases the "&" is the official spelling and part of the trading style of a company.
The equivalent would be for me to move the article Coca-Cola to soft drink with vegetable extracts both of which are correct, but only the first is the correct, copyrighted name.
It is interesting that all these article name changes have been made by one person. The section of the Manual of style in question doesn't appear to have been discussed (and apparently was arbitrarily included when the MOS was first set-up more than two years ago) all and I can only agree with the comment above. Why do people have to be so keen and not let common sense prevail? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Using the word "and" instead of an ampersand in article titles was discussed as early as 2004 in WikiProject Trains. It was discussed again in 2005 and consensus was to still use "and" at that time. The only change that I see since then is that WP:MOSNAME doesn't mention the use of the ampersand in article titles any more. Personally, I'd prefer to continue to use "and" for consistency. Slambo (Speak) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ampersands "&" in Railroad titles These little marks are part of many U. S. railroad corporate titles as the railroad names were reported to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is evidentily Wikipedia Policy to change actual corporate titles by substituting the word "and" instead of the ampersand "&". This is done to enhance linkability between articles. This is not the correct corporate title in some cases. For example the correct title in 1948 for the Santa Fe is The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. By substituting an incorrect name Wikipedia is practicing a type of revisionist history and the true name is lost. Wikipedia should use the correct railroad name, not one of convenience. --SSW9389 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently read an old issue of Trains in which they explain their choice to always use the ampersand, even when the official corporate title uses "and". It's not some sort of "revisionism"; it's a house style that they, and on the opposite end we, have adopted. --NE2 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Is anybody willing to create infoboxes specifically for Canada's VIA Rail stations? The United States already has them for Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, and New Jersey Transit, and Canada has some for AMT and GO Transit. ----DanTD (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, all. Saw a recent edit to an article I built, Sussex Railroad, that introduced a defaultsort with two spaces between Sussex and Railroad per your guidelines here. May I ask what the reason for the double space is? It has the unfortunate effect of alphabetizing Sussex Railroad above Sussex Airport (New Jersey) in Category:Transportation in Sussex County, New Jersey. This isn't desirable. --Rkitko (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to codifying the common practice of leaving off the word "Company" from an article name when it comes after "Railway" or "Railroad"? --NE2 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm attempting to clean up and improve the articles about stations served by Metrolink, a commuter rail service in Southern California. I was wondering if there was a Manual of Style for train stations, as I can't seem to locate one. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Major and important are thrown around with careless abandon, especially where the trains halting at a station are concerned. If they were so important, there would not be so many red links. One idea is to require notability, the same way we do for schools and their alumni. If the train is not a blue link, it goes. It is a simple matter to determine whether a train halts at a particular station, so the matter of additional references is no big deal. The words important and major appear frequently in the description of the station itself. There is no doubt that a station is important to the village, town, or city in which it is located, but to be important or major, the effect needs to be more broad. As a first cut, the top ten percent are major. The bottom twenty percent are small or minor. No description is required for the others. Argue for other numbers, but agree at least that half cannot get a superlative title. Rhadow (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is a an explanation of classes and categories of Indian rail stations from an unreliable, but likely true source:
Class refers to the complexity of the track configuration at a station, including whether it has switches and signals. It indicates the training required of the pilot. Category describes annual passenger count and revenue. Grade refers to the quality and alignment of the track on a line and the resulting speed limits. Rhadow (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Use the terms below (and edit if I'm wrong or missed something):
Generic | Indian English | UK/Australia | North America | Australia | another | another |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
operator | pilot | train driver | engineer | * | * | * |
train manager | guard | guard | conductor | * | * | * |
pedestrian overpass | foot over bridge | footbridge | pedestrian bridge | * | * | * |
cargo | goods | goods | freight | * | * | * |
on-demand stop | halt | halt; request stop | whistle stop | * | * | * |
yard-only operator | * | shunter | hostler | * | * | * |
cargo carrier | goods wagon | goods wagon | freight car | * | * | * |
passenger carrier | coach or bogie | coach or carriage | passenger car | * | * | * |
Dl2000, Fowler&fowler, and FR you may wish to comment. Rhadow (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Various articles have an ADA or disabled field in the infobox. Many articles have a handicapped icon applied. There seems to be no regular source of this information, certainly not in the the standard Indiarailinfo or NDTV website databases. What standard does Indian Railways have for handicapped access if any? If there is no source for this data, I will simply blank this field. Otherwise it will convey false expectations to readers.
Various articles describe the category of the station, then go on to use the classification field in the infobox. There is no way for a reader to interpret category or class of Indian railways stations (but both are defined). Unless there is a place to wikilink to, there is no point in having these data elements in Indian railway station articles.
native_name and native_name_lang should be blank or deleted altogether in Indian railway station articles.
map_locator is a waste or time. It may require the coordinates and station name to be entered a second time. It is simple to blank or delete it, then use the simpler map_type field instead. Rhadow (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Are there parameters to allow two images at once to be added to infoboxes? I noticed that somebody added a second image in the one for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, but it's within a thumbnail, and it's off center. ----DanTD (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted this question on the help desk page, and they sent me here. So here is my question that I posted there:
I have a question about the naming conventions of articles that I was hoping someone could answer. I have already read the naming conventions article, and my question was not answered by that. I have written several articles (La Floresta (FGC) and Sant Cugat (FGC)) about train stations run by a Catalan train company called the FGC. I was at first unsure about how to name these pages, but then I found a page on the same topic, Les Planes (FGC), which used the naming convention (putting 'FGC' in parentheses after the name of the station) that I then adopted for the two previously mentioned articles I created. But I am not sure if this is the right way to name these pages, as the redlinks to them are often inconsistent. Also the articles about the FGC's train lines are named as FGC lineand then the name of the line (for example FGC line S1). Should the stations be named as La Floresta (FGC station)? or FGC station La Floresta? Also, if you look at the names of some of the articles about the FGC stations, you will see that they have the name of the article followed by(Barcelona Metro) (for example, Sarrià (Barcelona Metro), but it is only correct to name articles about FGC stations this way if they are serviced by a FGC line that is part of the Barcelona Metro system, which the stations I am talking about are not. Please advise.
Thanks, Liam987 12:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to find some information on the naming convention(s) used for naming train stations. I'm told there was some heated debate about it, but I'm not finding it. I'm trying to resolve some inconsistent names for stations in the MARC system and had a rename reverted. Anyway, can someone point me in the right direction? —Al E.(talk) 18:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There are several formats to name lines:
Common is "X Line":
Several use "X specifier"/"X Specifier":
Other:
Triomio (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Please also see this and this discussion. In accordance with them, the above-proposed capitalised 'Railroad' and en dash have been implemented in article titles of railroads in Slovenia (see Category:Railway lines in Slovenia). --Eleassar my talk 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As you know, sometimes railway line names are just nominal. The following table summarize such train routes to railway lines relations. Unfortunately, current style guide applications to the pattern B, C, and D cause confusion on the article contents.
Thus, I think there is need for creating a new style guide called something like "Articles about rail route" style guide, which should be derived from the Articles about named passenger train services style guide. I also propose the new style guide to the pattern B, C, and D. in the following table. Any feedbacks and suggestions are welcome. Thanks. KU (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Pattern | A | B | C | D |
---|---|---|---|---|
Name | Train route = Railway line | Train route ≠ Railway line | Train route = Railway line | |
Length | Train route < Railway line | Train route > Railway line | ||
Desc. | A route is identical to a line. | 2 or more routes consists of a line. | A route name has no relevant to line names. | A route consists of the same name line + other lines |
Examples | ||||
Current style guide application | Articles about rail transport companies (railroads) | Articles about rail transport companies (railroads) | Articles about rail transport companies (railroads) | |
(Named trains: Articles about named passenger train services) | ||||
Pattern | A | B | C | D |
Proposed style guide application | Articles about rail transport companies (railroads) | Train route: Articles about rail route | Articles about rail route | |
(Railway line: Articles about rail transport companies (railroads)) | (Named trains: Articles about named passenger train services) | |||
Proposed infobox | ((Infobox_rail_line)) | Train route: ((Infobox_rail_service)) | ((Infobox_rail_service)) | |
(Railway line: ((Infobox_rail_line))) | (Named trains: ((Infobox_rail_service))) |
The result of the move request was: page moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style → Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice – Misleading name; this is not among the Manual of Style guidelines nor its subpages; it's a wikiproject advice page essay, on style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
How much detail should be included about each accident in a bulleted list of accidents on a railroad article page? This has come up over at the Union Pacific Railroad page, and is now under discussion. One editor is of the opinion that a recent non-fatal accident deserves hundreds of words of description; another would rather keep bulleted items to about two sentences, with more significant accidents being written up in their own article. We'd love to hear about general practices and other editors' thoughts on the matter. PRRfan (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Recently there were edits to several of the EMD locomotive pages that I follow where the change was simply the addition of a totals line. My question is this vandalism or best practice? Has the community come to a consensus about this?
Below is the edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EMD_GP60&diff=prev&oldid=1210324310 Jcody21 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)