Template talk:Infobox locomotive/Archive 1

hiddenStructure vs. qif
This template currently uses the hiddenStructure technique of hiding rows for data that has not been declared in the template usage call. However, using hiddenStructure does not hide the rows when pages using the template are viewed in text mode with lynx or with a screen reader for the blind. I've seen comments elsewhere that (which was itself survived a deletion vote in January) does not have this problem, but it runs afoul of users who wave the WP:AUM banner. Personally, I have no strong preference for either as the arguments are quite convincing on both sides. This template was written with hiddenStructure because it's easier to read and code. Until we have a formal policy in favor of one method over the other, it seems easiest and best for the moment to keep using hiddenStructure here. Slambo (Speak) 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I would like to eliminate hiddenStructure entirely, due to its many flaws (it also causes templates to fail when ported to other language Wikipedias), I've been hoping that built-in conditionals will be introduced in a timely fashion and all other methods ('qif', 'hiddenStructure', 'weeble', et cetera) can then be moved to that. In the mean-time, please consider using QIF for new templates because spreading 'hiddenStructure' really does dis-enfranchise the users for whom it doesn't work. You can actually structure QIF to work with virtually identical layout as hiddenStructure;




 * Thus there is really little difference between the two methods except that qif works for more people.--CBDunkerson 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the simpler explanation than I've seen elsewhere. I was thinking a migration to qif would be beneficial, you've just made it a lot easier.  B-)  With this syntax, is there anyone who would object to the switch?  I don't think I'll be able to perform the transition for another day or two, but maybe someone else would like to have a go at it?  Slambo (Speak)  20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried making the conversion, but must have missed something. Probably forgot a }} somewhere...  More investigation and I'll get it working (hopefully) tonight.  Slambo (Speak)  00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I wasn't missing anything, but qif itself is getting confused with all of the | characters for rows in wiki markup and misinterpreting them as the end of parameter markers for itself. Hmmm... Slambo (Speak)  01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

After a little more experimentation, I have a working test template that matches this template's functionality but using ParserFunctions instead of hiddenStructure or qif (which is now the subject of an MFD in order to deprecate it). When I tried looking at my template usage test page in lynx, it still showed the parameters that were unused. Slambo (Speak) 20:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! Pasting my test code into the template produced a page of blank space above the infobox.  Back to testing... Slambo (Speak)  18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the #if: was around the text of each line, but not the line breaks themselves... you had each #if: on a separate line and all of those line breaks appear in the finished product whether the stuff 'inside' the #if: does or not. There are a few ways around that:
 * Put all the #if: in a long stream with no line breaks. In most cases this is messy and confusing and thus not used.
 * Put comment markers (i.e. ) around the line breaks to suppress them. Thus you'd see  at the start of each... causing the line break in between to be commented out.
 * Put the closing brackets of one #if: on the same line as the opening brackets of the next like, }}{{#if: . This puts the line breaks inside the #if: code... where standard wiki-markup ignores line breaks if there is just one.
 * Build the #if: around wiki table markup by replacing any '|' characters inside the #if: text with {{!}} . That evaluates to a '|', but does not interfere with the #if: '|' characters... then the wiki table markup takes care of line spacing.
 * --CBDunkerson 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Way cool. Thanks! Slambo (Speak)  10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Locomotive Class
Could someone who knows what they're doing link "Class" to class (locomotive)? Mangoe 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Slambo (Speak) 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of an extra column for imperial vs metric measure?
Hi there,

I quite like using this infobox template, but the only limitation I find is that to provide both imperial and metric measurements can get a little messy. I'm not greatly fussed by imperial vs metric (I come from one of those countries where both systems are still in common use and we're pretty good at converting!) however, I understand that the Wikipedia manual of style suggests "give the metric equivalent as a courtesy". Furthermore, even if I choose to leave my articles with imperial measures only, a number of editors will seek out articles with imperial measures and insert metric equivalents as happened to the Victorian Railways H class and Victorian Railways N class articles I originally authored.

I see no point to providing metric measures only, given that I'm writing about locomotives where all design parameters were quoted in imperial units, as this makes the article much harder for someone to use when comparing other historical sources quoting imperial measures.

I find the imperial/metric thing particularly messy if you are trying to also include details of a design change to a locomotive, eg "total weight: X lbs (XX kg) as built, Y lbs (YY kg) after superheater installation".

I'm not sure how to best handle this. Could we consider modifying the infobox so that it splits the cells for those fields which require a measurement such as lbs, ft etc into two columns, with the second column for metric measurements an optional extra? Zzrbiker 05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Weight Loco
I find in some steam locomotive articles that the definition of "weight" as "The locomotive's total weight" is a source of confusion. In some cases this has been taken to mean the total weight of the locomotive and tender (already covered by the rubric "locotenderweight" - the combined locomotive and tender total weight). If I have understood right, "weight" stands for the weight of the locomotive (power unit) alone, presumably in working order. This is a far more useful criterion if we remember that a steam locomotive can be attached to several different tenders in the course of its career. For instance giving the loco+tender weight for French locomotives would be particularly meaningless as locomotives and tenders were maintained by separate services and had more or less independent careers.--John of Paris 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange nobody has taken up this issue. Not being very IT literate I hesitate to mess with the template, but suggest it is really urgent to change the mark-up to "weight loco" instead of "total weight" which should avoid confusion for the steam folk whilst not disturbing the others.--John of Paris 08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks pals! - for nothing. I've held my breath, modified the template and it seems to work all right. Someone should check all the same.--John of Paris (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Field required for 'ALT' text
There is a growing move towards the provision of 'ALT' text for images within WP (WP:ALT). This is text that will be displayed if the image cannot be loaded or, more importantly, if a visually-impaired user is making use of a screen-reader: the ALT text will be read out loud, before the caption, to describe what the picture shows. (Incidentally, for validated HTML code, ALL images must have alt text defined.)

In SR Merchant Navy class I have managed to fool the infobox into including the alt text (by using the template, which sneaks-in a pipe symbol) by effectively adding it to the end of the filename. (See the alt text for each image using the 'toolbox' on the article's talk page.) A side-effect is that it shows as 'title' text, which would not normally be the case.

It would be much better if there were an 'alt = ' field provided to apply the text to the image correctly. My Parser function knowledge is rusty, so I'd rather someone else attempted this!

EdJogg (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. SR Merchant Navy class now modified to suit. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Confused
The first line of the documentation on the main page reads: The first line above reads:
 * This template has a large number of parameters, all of which are optional:
 * This template has a large number of parameters, but only two are required:

Neither appears to be the whole story. I have just noticed that if you leave the image size blank, as in | imagesize = you don't get an image. If you remove the line, you get the default size.

What I'd really cheer for is a change to the template to produce the default if it's left blank. In general, I'm reluctant to remove blank parameter lines, as the parameter might be needed in the future. This is particularly true of images, which often come after the article. If that's hard, then I'll change the documentation. . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've also adjusted the default size if none is given to "frameless", which matches the user's default thumbnail size. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Borders
So we've got one of those tiresome situations where someone is demanding "consensus" before changes are made. I suppose that means leaving a comment here, seeing nobody oppose it (because it's a trivial change to make the infobox look better) and reinstating it. I removed the "bordered" CSS class from the template, so as to better fit with almost all other automotive infobox templates on the encyclopedia. There is no particular reason for having borders here other than that this template has maintained its design since before infobox templates had a standard look and feel (and of course the possibility that people who use the undo button as a veto have discouraged editors from working on it). As such, they should be removed again unless there's some genuinely pressing reason to keep them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't an "Automotive" info box, and some people like the fact that borders separate the infobox text from the article text. Id like to see more opinions. Your comments ("tiresome situation", "people who use the undo button as a veto", etc,) appear to violate the good faith of my edits, please apply WP:AGF more thoroughly in the future. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that I've been reverted over a minor styling change without any attempt to discuss the matter; that is indeed tiresome. While "some people" may indeed like the borders, these people are in a minority; WP has been gradually trending towards the borderless style for several years. An examination of WikiProject Trains/Article templates indicates that this is the only infobox under the Trains project's purview which uses the bordered style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters
There are five parameters which place the transcluding article into Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox locomotive template. Four of these are shown as deprecated near the bottom of the documentation; however framesize is not so listed, but instead is shown in the blank templates and the examples. If framesize is deprecated, the documentation should be fixed; if not, the category should be removed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes section
Can there be a 'notes' section - in some cases there is needed some disambugation between near types using *†‡ symbols and no place to put the info eg in MaK_/_Vossloh_G1206 they are in the career section.

I've made a version here Template:Infobox_locomotive/sandbox - if ok can implement and add to documentation. (I know there is 'hatnote' but that's not at the bottom? what's that for?) Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tested it - seems to work? is the colour ok? Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to WP:BOLD and implement it as it hasn't broken anything, (and I need it.) Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox train
There's now another discussion available at Template talk:Infobox train about default image sizes if anyone has an opinion.Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Imagesize
The notes say the default imagesize is 300, but it appears to be thumbnail sized which is about 200 (and a bit small)

Can it be changed to 300? I don't know how.

Would this work:?

px|frameless}}|alt=]]}}

Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox locomotive/test seems to work after correcting errors. Any problems with implementing it. (what happened to the original?)Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for making the default larger. One can always override the default if there is a particular reason, but frameless seems to be a sensible default.  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy Manual of Style (infoboxes) does indeed suggest that 300px is the preferred width. But, what do you mean by "what happened to the original"? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well seeing as the documentation for this page says 300 is default I assumed it once was - I'll have a look at the history and see if that was ever true.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * .. ah someone did it back in (I knew I wasn't imagining it) - they also added what seems to be an unnecessary "frameless" modifier - I think it's frameless by default unless it's a thumb. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused about what the keyword frameless means. You can think of it as the "default thumbnail size without a frame", which is basically the analog of "thumb" without the frame. This allows the user to specify the default thumbnail image size in his or her preferences. Without a size parameter, the default is to show the unscaled image, which is certainly not frameless by default. It is frameless by default now, but that is because it is specified as such. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason for changing it while we are in the middle of a discussion? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where was the discussion to change it in the first place from the default. Don't be odd.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to the way it was. I wasn't aware of any discussion when it was changed from the default of 300px. I used the original version instead of my own since that definately worked.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or not, thanks for changing it to the more modern File: version. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be frameless, but I am not going to engage in an edit war. You may wish to read the documentation for px by the way. It typically has two arguments: (1) a possibly blank value set by the user and (2) a default value in case no value is specified by the user.  For example  .  An added bonus of using px is that it automatically adds the necessary px suffix in the case that a bare number is specified.  Also, there is some information about things like frameless at Picture tutorial (search for frameless in the page text).  The benefit of using things like "frameless" is that it allows the end user to override the image size, it will never stretch an image past its native resolution, and it works for tall and skinny images where setting the width is not what you want to do (instead want to specify a maximum height). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the technical details here are leaving me a little lost.. As I used to understand it, frameless is like thumb but without the border? The addition of user defined thumb sizes puts the cat among the pidgeons, and considerably complicates things. The box seems to have issues in terms of width (too small/too big, not following thumbsize currently, but thumbsize too small, too big for narrow screens) as well as vertical length (too long with narrow image size, probably too long anyway, too many fields possibly) ... etc etc
 * I'm beginning to wonder if the number of fields in these railway infoboxes in contributing to the overall issue.. And that the technical info would be better presented in a different way. ie suggest considerably reducing the number of infobox fields. I've no idea if anyone else would accept that, since it would require some considerable rewriting of articles to make the change. It would definately require substantial discussion and consensus -- probably unlikely to overcome natural inertia.
 * It's currently beyond me how to make a loco infobox that works on big/small screens, with acceptable picture size, and accounting for user preferences without making other changes to the overall structure. The shortest version (electric) has 50+ non exclusive text fields - that's too many.
 * Let me know if there's any attempt to fix this problem, but in the meantime I'm going to stick my head in the sand and hope it fixes itself... Here's hoping. Cheers.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding frameless: see WP:EIS. Regarding user-defined thumbnail size: see WP:FILE. To amend that for yourself (or just to try out different default sizes): go to Special:Preferences, select the "Appearance" tab, and it's in the "Files" box as "Thumbnail size". -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of alternatives, British_Rail_Class_59 is one way to present techical info, in a table, and ironically the way it used to be done before infoboxes conquered the world. I'm starting to think that this is a better way, and the infoboxes should have only basic details suitable for those with passing or limited interest in the subject. As far as I know I'm in a class of one in holding this opinion. If there is any general support for a shortened infobox it might be worth proceeding further (I wouldn't have an issue with doing the rewrites since the info is already in the article). Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox locomotive tender
I've gotten by quite well so far with the Infobox locomotive template while writing articles on electrics and diesels, but now that I've started on steam I've discovered a need for a separate Infobox locomotive tender, alternatively to either expand Infobox locomotive or to create a subsection inside it to cover steam loco tenders, since the existing tender-specific parameters (eg tenderweight, tendertype, tendercap) are not sufficient. My own preference would be for a subsection with a coloured heading line above Railroad, rather than a separate Infobox locomotive tender. Suggested parameters are: There may be more... Examples of what I've done so far by adding a second truncated Infobox locomotive template are South African Class 25NC 4-8-4 and South African Class 26 4-8-4. André Kritzinger 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * type            =
 * image           = (debatable, nice to have but not essential)
 * alt             = ditto
 * imagesize       = ditto
 * caption         = ditto
 * hatnote         = ditto
 * designer        =
 * builder         =
 * ordernumber     =
 * serialnumber    =
 * builddate       =
 * totalproduction =
 * rebuilder       =
 * rebuilddate     =
 * bogies          =
 * wheeldiameter   =
 * wheelbase       =
 * length          =
 * width           =
 * height          =
 * axleload        =
 * emptyweight     =
 * workorderweight =
 * coalcap         =
 * fueloilcap      =
 * watercap        =
 * railroad        = ditto
 * notes           = eg Mechanical stoker

Differentiating type vs individual loco
Is there a single parameter which can be relied upon, to determine whether the subject of the infobox is a locomotive type or an individual locomotive? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not currently, but if the article has Category:Individual locomotives it should be about an individual locomotive (not necessarily a class of 1).Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I specifically needed something in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be added as an option, but I'm not sure how that would be indicated. My first thought would be to use a different standard colour for 'unique' loco infoboxes, but colour labelling appears to be out of fashion elsewhere (tendency towards plain black on white, limited borders and ruling lines).
 * Any ideas how to indicate it's a one loco infobox ?Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How about just putting it in the "Name" parameter? eg | name = South Africa's Red Devil or | name  = Chessie System's B&O GM50? André Kritzinger 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, if the solitary loco be (say) no. 1234, put it in as 1234 -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Splitting up into child info boxes
Here's an arbitrary split:

Infobox locomotive
 * name            =
 * powertype       =
 * image           =
 * alt             =
 * imagesize       = 300
 * caption         =
 * hatnote         =
 * designer        =
 * builder         =
 * ordernumber     =
 * serialnumber    =
 * buildmodel      =
 * builddate       =
 * totalproduction =
 * rebuilder       =
 * rebuilddate     =
 * numberrebuilt   =
 * whytetype       =
 * aarwheels       =
 * uicclass        =
 * gauge           =
 * trucks          =
 * bogies          =
 * leadingdiameter =
 * driverdiameter  =
 * wheeldiameter   =
 * trailingdiameter =
 * minimumcurve    =
 * wheelbase       =
 * length          =
 * width           =
 * height          =
 * framesize       =
 * axleload        =
 * weightondrivers =
 * locoweight      =
 * fueltype        =
 * fuelcap         =
 * lubecap         =
 * coolantcap      =
 * watercap        =
 * sandcap         =
 * consumption     =
 * watercons       =
 * electricsystem  =
 * collectionmethod =
 * tractionmotors  =
 * transmission    =
 * multipleworking =
 * topspeed        =
 * poweroutput     =
 * tractiveeffort  =
 * factorofadhesion =
 * trainheating    =
 * locobrakes      =
 * locobrakeforce  =
 * trainbrakes     =
 * safety          =
 * railroad        =
 * railroadclass   =
 * powerclass      =
 * numinclass      =
 * roadnumber      =
 * officialname    =
 * nicknames       =
 * axleloadclass   =
 * locale          =
 * deliverydate    =
 * firstrundate    =
 * lastrundate     =
 * retiredate      =
 * withdrawndate   =
 * preservedunits  =
 * restoredate     =
 * scrapdate       =
 * currentowner    =
 * disposition     =
 * notes           =

(just under the 80 fields limit I think)

Steam and diesel (ie combustion) type

Steam specific


 * boiler          =
 * boilerpressure  =
 * feedwaterheater =
 * firearea        =
 * tubearea        =
 * fluearea        =
 * tubesandflues   =
 * fireboxarea     =
 * totalsurface    =
 * superheatertype =
 * superheaterarea =
 * frontcylindersize=
 * rearcylindersize =
 * hpcylindersize  =
 * lpcylindersize  =
 * valvegear       =
 * valvetype       =
 * valvetravel     =
 * valvelap        =
 * valvelead       =
 * tenderweight    =
 * locotenderweight =
 * tendertype      =
 * tendercap       =

(used for both ??)
 * cylindercount   =
 * cylindersize    =

Diesel specific


 * primemover      =
 * rpmrange        =
 * enginetype      =
 * aspiration      =
 * displacement    =
 * alternator      =
 * generator       =

All the steam and diesel bits could be combined into a single child ("infobox:rail vehicle combustion" ?), or another way, depending on if there is a bigger plan. If more need to be removed from the main then I'd suggest splitting off all the ones that relate to builders, build_model_numbers, dates and work histories.. Is this workable, or was something more systematic wanted? 83.100.200.4 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! What would you suggest for section headings?  Another idea would be to have a "Physical dimensions" section, "Power generation" section, ...  What do you think?  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * {edit conflict)It was mentioned that there might be an issue with Template:convert in the child boxes - if this is the case this split could be used - only text fields in the child - however no room for any further expansion in the parent

Infobox locomotive' + name            = + powertype       = + image           = + alt             = + imagesize       = 300 + caption         = + hatnote         = + gauge           = + trucks          = + bogies          = + leadingdiameter = + driverdiameter  = + wheeldiameter   = + trailingdiameter = + minimumcurve    = + wheelbase       = + length          = + width           = + height          = + framesize       = + axleload        = + weightondrivers = + locoweight      = + fueltype        = + fuelcap         = + lubecap         = + coolantcap      = + watercap        = + sandcap         = + consumption     = + watercons       = + electricsystem  = + collectionmethod = + tractionmotors  = + transmission    = + multipleworking = + topspeed        = + poweroutput     = + tractiveeffort  = + factorofadhesion = + trainheating    = + locobrakes      = + locobrakeforce  = + trainbrakes     = + boiler          = + boilerpressure  = + feedwaterheater = + firearea        = + tubearea        = + fluearea        = + tubesandflues   = + fireboxarea     = + totalsurface    = + superheatertype = + superheaterarea = + frontcylindersize= + rearcylindersize = + hpcylindersize  = + lpcylindersize  = + valvegear       = + valvetype       = + valvetravel     = + valvelap        = + valvelead       = + tenderweight    = + locotenderweight = + tendertype      = + tendercap       = + cylindercount   = + cylindersize    = + rpmrange        = + displacement    = + alternator      = + generator       =

(just under 80 I think but not much room for any further expansion)

fields not needing convert + whytetype       = + aarwheels       = + uicclass        = + designer        = + builder         = + ordernumber     = + serialnumber    = + buildmodel      = + builddate       = + totalproduction = + rebuilder       = + rebuilddate     = + numberrebuilt   = + safety          = + railroad        = + railroadclass   = + powerclass      = + primemover      = + enginetype      = + aspiration      = + numinclass      = + roadnumber      = + officialname    = + nicknames       = + axleloadclass   = + locale          = + deliverydate    = + firstrundate    = + lastrundate     = + retiredate      = + withdrawndate   = + preservedunits  = + restoredate     = + scrapdate       = + currentowner    = + disposition     = + notes           =


 * continued Yes I think sectionalisation is probably a good idea, would have to think about it first, but "physical dimensions" sounds like the right title for one. There already is a "career" subsection in the current info box. Possibly there's scope for another field "manufacture" containing all the builder, and serial number details. I'm not sure how to name a "power" section in a way that would work for steam, diesel, and electric locomotives. Will think for a bit.83.100.200.4 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just been looking at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/030_T_Ouest_1011_%C3%A0_1114 and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB_17000 - using a different template method - but probably near to what is being aimed at here..
 * "Technical characteristics" (or "specifications") seems like a good section title, I'd keep the career section we already have, maybe even merge that into a "construction and career" section - to include the 'life' from birth to death. I'm not sure if an "external dimensions" section is needed separate from "specifications" but it maybe is.
 * I'd start of with a suggestion of (from top to bottom):
 * Title/image
 * some high importance fields (gauge, railroad, totalproduction, uicclass and whytetype, weight) in the top section below the image (section title "powertype" + diesel/electric etc as it is now)
 * Probably "external dimensions" just below that.
 * "technical characteristics"
 * "construction and career"
 * plus the notes and hatnotes). Ask if you want an ordered list made up, otherwise I'll wait and see what others say. 83.100.200.4 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that whilst a bare pipe "|" in a collapsible section doesn't work (it's taken as a parameter separator not a displayable character), it's possible to display a pipe using the special template which displays as |. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Field statistics
Here is the current state of affairs in terms of each field, and how often each one is being used. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This list includes the five parameters mentioned in the section . -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't there such things as middle cylinders. Also low and high pressure cylinder pressures and all that - thought this was the meat and veg of steam engine technical details.. anyway - if the split below is acceptable there is plenty of room in the child infobox for many more steam and diesel related fields if wanted. (I assume the idea of reducing the number of fields is a non-starter) 83.100.200.4 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We might be able to cut about six to ten, but to cut 25 or so would be painful. So, yes, I think the idea is to try to section the fields, and then use subclassing.  Once we have things subclassed, adding a few more shouldn't be a problem (other than the potential for creating a box that dwarfs the article). Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @83.100.200.4 - I think you refer to compound locos. In a three-cylinder compound, the middle cylinder will either be the high pressure cyl (as with the Midland Railway 1000 Class), in which case use hpcylindersize, or it will be the low pressure cyl (as with the LNWR Class A), in which case use lpcylindersize. As for different pressures, the h.p. cyls will be fed at boiler pressure (or nearly so, there is always a loss between regulator and steam chest), whereas the pressure of the l.p. cyls is very much dependent upon the expansion ratio of the h.p. cyls and so is not normally quoted, being of theoretical, not practical value. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Standard format infobox
I believe this was discussed here somewhere else a long time ago - I was wondering if anyone was going to convert this infobox to the 'standard format' type with no coloured sections, and less horizontal field separating lines? (I could try this myself but would fail or make a mess probably).Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a first attempt here, but there is a problem. The infobox template has a limit of 80 fields, and the conversion required 110.  There are a couple ways around this problem: (1) identify under used fields and remove them, (2) create subsections then use the "child" feature in infobox, or (3) both.  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks (or get an increase from 80 - is that not an option)
 * It seems like the child feature would break current formatting (and I suppose there are a lot to fix)
 * I was going to suggest splitting diesels and electrics off eg Infobox:Diesel locomotive - but some diesels are also electrics.. :( Howeverer splitting steam from diesel and electric cuts out some unnecessary terms from both.
 * I can suggest contractions for fields if wanted eg combine the fields "| deliverydate    = | firstrundate     = | lastrundate      = | retiredate       = | withdrawndate .." into a "|keydates=" field, and leave it to the editor.
 * I would expect that might not be popular. However if you want contracted field lists for a new template Template:Infobox diesel and electric loco, and someone to write documetation for those fields I will do that if someone else can make the actual template.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting the number of fields increased would be an uphill battle, since it would marginally increase the rendering time for many many articles, and there appears to be a movement to even reduce the number of fields at the moment. The subclassing option isn't that bad.  You can take a look at Infobox power station if you want an example.  They had the same problem, and subclassing was the solution. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood - I though the editors would have to type   inside the infobox - so subclassing could be used and the pages using the old versions of the templates still work?Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. The only potential problem is that it does add to the transclusion depth, which can cause issues with convert.  Basically, if we can identify subsections, then we can group stuff together.  I made some arbitrary groupings in the sandbox, but I didn't add any headings for the subsections, so you get a double line where there should be a section heading.  As an example of a section, we could group all the physical dimensions together.  Before we do too much, we should first figure out if there are any fields which aren't in use, which would cut down on the work a bit.  I will run a bot through to get the list of all the fields currently in use, with statistics on the counts for each field. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  03:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that some articles on Diesel or electric multiple units are using, and not. I've recently fixed up ; what's the best way of detecting these misuses? -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are in a particular category, you can do this or this. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion: has a parameter nrhp which allows a  to be nested - see, for example, Slidell (Amtrak station). If  had similar, it would be of assistance on articles like Virginia and Truckee Railroad No. 27, since some steam locos in the USA are registered with NRHP. (this follows on from thread started yesterday at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force). -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean up list
Most of these are simple typos in the field names (firstrundatre -> firstrundate), but some may require more thought. I have already cleaned up about a hundred or so, but there are more to do. Feel free to help out if you have time. It would be great to remove them as they are fixed, but it's not critical, since I can just regenerate the list (it takes about 20 minutes). Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed field name in USATC S200 Class but mimimum curve is given as an angle - does this make sense?Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It might - if the Hallade method is in use. Don't hold me to that idea though. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * More - the field "service" doesn't appear to have an alternative - field values I found were "road switcher" and "freight" - seems to be an obvious ommission - others would be "heavy freight" "mainline passenger" "mixed" etc. Oops I removed these from the list but didn't make a note, and didn't remove the field. Will turn up on a rescan.


 * Another field that I don't understand is "serviceclass" : || EMD GP38-2, EMD SD40, EMD SDP45, SNCB Class 28 (Bombardier) all of which are labled "cab" - I wonder if this is something to do with "dual cab" "mono cab" "slug locomotives" ? - as far as I know this field doesn't exist. I didn't remove these fields.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also no real equivalent field for "gearratio" as was in PKP class EU20 - I usually would put this information in the article, or in the transmission field, or in the "traction motor" field, which is what I have done - as this is what it refers to - the gear -ratio between motor and axle gear.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also removal of all instances of "data for" fields eg in PRR CC1s, PRR E2, PRR H6, PRR K4s, SNCF Class 241P, South Australian Railways 520 class, South Australian Railways 620 class, Victorian Railways A2 class, Victorian Railways AA class, Victorian Railways B class, Victorian Railways C class, Victorian Railways Dd class, Victorian Railways G class, Victorian Railways H class, Victorian Railways J class, Victorian Railways K class, Victorian Railways N class, Victorian Railways R class, Victorian Railways S class, Victorian Railways X class -- just a duplicate of the name field.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * another thing is the absence of a field for "locomotive wheel arrangement name or general design name" eg mallet, altantic, pacific, Shay etc. probably not needed, I just thought I would note it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note the fields "service" and "serviceclass" and others are found in Template:Infobox locomotive auto documentation - which explains what they are supposed to do, and also probably explains how they got somehow into the standard infobox.Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Something that hasn't yet been mentioned is unnamed (positional) parameters - the template doesn't recognise any of these, but they may have been introduced by accident. For example, the  lacking a trailing equal sign which I fixed with. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add a temporary tracking category to find these. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  21:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be detecting constructs like
 * ie the newline between the last pipe and the closing double brace. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's due to the detection of even blank values for . I could change this, but I think it's generally better to put the pipes at the start of the line.  Many novice editors don't understand the pipe-at-the-end construct, and either (a) remove them by accident or (b) put the data after the pipe by accident.  I have seen far fewer difficulties when the pipes are at the beginning of the line.  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree there: although if I encounter an infobox that's pipes-at-end, I'll generally leave it as such unless either I want to add lots of params, or it's messy. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's due to the detection of even blank values for . I could change this, but I think it's generally better to put the pipes at the start of the line.  Many novice editors don't understand the pipe-at-the-end construct, and either (a) remove them by accident or (b) put the data after the pipe by accident.  I have seen far fewer difficulties when the pipes are at the beginning of the line.  Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree there: although if I encounter an infobox that's pipes-at-end, I'll generally leave it as such unless either I want to add lots of params, or it's messy. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to try to catch the editor that's doing this and explain it a  bit to them - I  noticed a few edits like this over the last week. Could end up with a game of edit ping pong otherwise. I left them a message, but it's an IP address so I don't know if they will see it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you did "catch me". It doesn't seem serious enough to gather together a group of editors to do the same. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you might have a dynamic IP and never actually see the message. Just trying to maximise the chances of 'catching you'. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. You might want to consider adding a check for "powertype != steam" and "locotenderweight" if you really want to catch all of them. Another idea would be to add a check for unusual "powertype" values. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and nice work with the "name" parameter. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes: weight to mass
Regarding ; I see no talk page discussion for this. Adding the powersupply parameter is one thing; changing how five others display is another, and WP:CONSENSUS should have been obtained.

I for one do not approve of the change: whilst "mass" may be the correct scientific term, most books and magazines that I encounter use the word "weight" and I would prefer that we continue to use that term. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with replacing "weight" with "mass", since it is the correct term and all. As long as it's done without invoking the "Law of Unintended Consequences".....

André Kritzinger 12:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Weight should be used instead of mass. Not only is it the more common term (see WP:COMMONNAME) but also considering how these numbers are determined. Is the density and volume of the completed part or assembly determined, or is the part or assembly put on a scale? For the figures in question, the weight (the normal force felt by the rails) is what we're after. Rails (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, it may be a good idea to have both available as an option in the template, especially for those instances where the sources state mass vs. weight in the specifications. It would then be left to the individual articles to use one or the other, though not both, as that would just get cluttered. Rails (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: "framesize" Field
Instead of the field name "Frame size", how about just calling it "Frame"? The reason is that on all 73 South African steam locomotives I've written articles on to date, I could not find information on the frame size of any of them. On all of them, however, there is a distinction on whether the locomotive had a bar frame or plate frame, and since there's no field for that, I've been using the "Frame size" field for that feature. André Kritzinger (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Got brave and deleted "size" in the template. So far it does not look as it's creating havoc. André Kritzinger (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Boiler centre/center line
I would like to suggest an additional "Boiler" field to use for the height of the boiler centre line above the railhead. In the steam era it was a long standing principle that this centre line height should not exceed twice the track gauge, or 7 feet on Cape gauge locomotives. Beatty of the CGR, for example, only resorted to exceeding this limit in 1906 in order to enable a deeper firebox. I could add that information in the existing boiler field, but as it is I already use that field to show both size dimensions - the boiler diameter AND the distance between tube plates or interior length. The descriptions could then be: Is this do-able? André Kritzinger (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * boiler - The locomotive's boiler size
 * centerline - Height of the boiler centre line above the railhead
 * boilerpressure - The total boiler pressure rating
 * The British term for this dimension is the "boiler pitch". -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifying left column width
Is it possible to specify the width of the left (headings) column? As it is now, the width is automatically adjusted, occasionally with undesired results. André Kritzinger (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example? Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  00:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Here's one at South African Class 10D 4-6-2. Please compare the left column width between the present version and before my last edit. The edit consisted merely of changing the boiler entry from "boiler          = 5 ft int dia, 18 ft between tube plates" to "boiler           = 5 ft int dia, 18 ft int length" Then also compare the left column width of this article with that of South African Class 10A 4-6-2. André Kritzinger (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is one of those things that varies between browsers, see the composite screenshot at right. The left-hand stack is how I see the version in five different browsers as shown; the right-hand stack shows how the same browsers handle the  version.
 * Template:Infobox locomotive is written in such a way that the overall width is 22em but the individual column widths are unspecified. This allows the browser to optimise those two widths; the algorithms used are not available to me (they may even be copyrighted), but they certainly differ between browsers as the screenshot demonstrates.
 * Trying to make the infobox look "right" when viewed in your particular browser may well cause it to look worse in other browsers. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But since the left column only contain headings while the right column often contains a large amount of information as in this example, I'd still suggest that the width of the left column should be limited to between about a quarter and a third of the overall width of the infobox. Would that be do-able? André Kritzinger (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does  work for columns?  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it will have to be used somewhere in here: {| class="infobox bordered" style="width: 22em; text-align: left; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em" but I'm not brave enough to attempt it. André Kritzinger (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Found labelstyle="width:33%", got brave, got nowhere... André Kritzinger (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The variation between browsers as shown above by Red rose64 is actually minor. It does not seem to be large enough to lead to undesirable results if the left column was to be limited to (or even fixed at) about a third of the overall infobox width. In fact, all the examples can do with a narrower left column. So, if it's do-able, can't it at least be given a trial run? André Kritzinger (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No takers yet? André Kritzinger (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. André Kritzinger (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Change to "Locale" Field
Hi folks. Could we please consider changing the fieldname "locale" to the more internationally recognised and more accurate "location", "locality" or "country". I believe "locale" is very much American vernacular for "locality", but it is rare in Europe and elsewhere. Also, according to the international Oxford Dictionary of English, "locale" is strictly "a place where something happens" or "has particular events associated with it" i.e. it's more like a "venue", whereas the other two terms are just used for the place, position or site of something. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Transmission vs Propulsion System
Is "transmission" the best place to put details regarding a locomotive's propulsion system? Especially with electric and more modern locomotives how the power is transmitted to the wheels can be a fairly complex affair. I'm perfectly happy with dumping these details into the transmission heading, but perhaps a new field might be more prudent. Sturmovik (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are other parameters already... for example, tractionmotors is used for electric and Diesel-electric locos; whilst Diesel-electric locos may also use either alternator or generator. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for demonstrating the lack of knowledge about propulsion systems here. Most locomotive entries don't mention if electric locomotives use things like tap changers or motor-generators or rectifiers or some combination therein.  The transmission box is turning into a paragraph when it needs to cover the complete path of the power to the motors, then the force to the wheels.  This mostly affects electric locomotives up until the 1980's, but also early diesels. Sturmovik (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The field is useful for diesel-hydraulic locomotives. In the case of electrics, diesel-electrics and such I "misused" it for the gear ratio, for which a field doesn't exist. André Kritzinger 12:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lack of knowledge"? Ha. Don't make assumptions about what I do or do not know. If you use vague terms like "propulsion system", you must expect vague answers. "Propulsion system" could cover the whole process from burning the fuel to the gears linking the traction motors to the axles. Tapchangers and the like don't propel the locomotive, they are part of what we in the UK group together as "control equipment". -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Propulsion system is not a vague term, its an industry standard term for all the stuff that's under the floor that makes the (usually electric) locomotive run. The MU template uses the British english term "Traction system", which would also work.12:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Truck or bogie centers
Could someone add truck and/or bogie centers (truck to truck) to the template as an optional parameter? This would of course apply to diesel locomotives, diesel electric locomotives and electric locomotives only. Peter Horn User talk 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eureka: This template has the parameter "wheelbase", see Iore. Peter Horn User talk 15:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Acceleration and deceleration, that's what I wanted
Yes Plastikspork, acceleration and deceleration, that's exactly what I wanted. Peter Horn User talk 04:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Coupling
Can some one please add the field (parameter) "|coupling =" and in such manner that it links to railway coupling? This field is available in template:Infobox train. Peter Horn User talk 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * added here, hopefully this is in the correct location (we can always move it up or down). Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460 shows the parameter as used and where it shows up. It looks alright, but template:infobox train may shunt it into a different position as it does with the field "|gauge = ". Peter Horn User talk 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rack railway locomotives
has additional fields for rack railway locomotives. Peter Horn User talk 23:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle
Would some editors like look at this infobox - it would seem sensible to convert this to the english language infoboxes. Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will put this on my list, but if you have some ideas, please go for it. Basically, I think we can do what we did for Template:Infobox Burg, which is to make this a translation template which can be substituted to automatically create one of the English language templates. I am guessing this should be converted to this template? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just manually conveted a few on a whim - in general yes - think some sort of conversion needs doing - a quick look at the terms seems to show easy matches between the templates. The exceptions I found were :


 * Anti-skid protection Gleitschutz
 * Floor height Fußbodenhöhe
 * Duties Betriebsart ??? not sure
 * Tachometer Geschwindigkeitsmesser
 * I'd guess these have never been used anyway..
 * Someone else will need to check the steam ones. There are some fields for rack railways, and battery powered vehicles as well as railbuses - but looking at "what links here" suggests they probably haven't been used in practice. - most are steam locomotives
 * Is it possible to run a bot to do a like for like field value replacement? If so I can start to make a list of field equivalents etc if suggested.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can help automate the process, either by bot or by making a translation template which can be substiuted or both. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See my remarks at Template talk:Infobox locomotive below. Peter Horn User talk 23:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delightful nonsense
Many tecnologically challenged contributors/users/editors come up with sample No.1 & 3 for electric and diesel-electric locomotives respectively. Sample No.2 & 4 shows what it should be. Peter Horn User talk 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE bring back the separating lines
The template was changed by User:Lfdder today and the separating lines between sections were removed in the process. It looks nice and clean, but I find it hard on the eyes, especially when the titles in the left column are not one-liners and even worse when the info in both columns are multiple-liners. I'm creating an article right now and I find it strainful on the eyes, so I can only imagine how much worse will it be for the reader! André Kritzinger (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Field for steam locomotives
For steam locomotives there should be the parameter |labelXX = Cylinders Peter Horn User talk 04:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than introduce yet another field, I've made it so the link changes when the powertype is set to 'steam'. — lfdder 04:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Whatever works is just fine. All that now needs to be done is to be sure that every infobox of every steam locomotive article actually has steam in the power type line. Peter Horn User talk 13:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Showing header for empty section
Please see Llynvi and Ogmore Railway. The template shows header "Career", even when it is empty. It would be better if it is hidden. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Distance between truck / bogie pivots
Template:Infobox German railway vehicle has Pivot pitch Drehzapfenabstand, Distance between bogie pivots or pins (or center plates). This is a nice, unambiguous, distinction from wheel base. Peter Horn User talk 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD likely result is to merge the German infobox into this
The TFD nomination that is posted at the top of the template right now looks likely to result in a merge. I've started a quick experiment to map the parameters from the German template to this one at User:Slambo/DE infobox. I'd be interested to hear other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak) 16:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have updated my test template to include a switch based on the presence of a couple parameters (so far, these are Fußbodenhöhe for floor height or Türen for doors) that do not apply to locomotives. If those parameters are used, it will show Infobox train instead. Please take a moment to review my test template and provide feedback as needed.  Thanks! Slambo <small style="color:black;">(Speak)  21:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A bug?
IE 201 Class, a dug in the short ton value {{convert|108.862|t} {{convert|108.862|t} Peter Horn User talk 01:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume by "dug" you mean "bug" - what is the problem that you see? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I mean "bug" (typo). I now also notice that there was a "}" missing in 108.862 t 108.862 t. To me the output of 120.000 short tons does not feel right, but I could be wrong. Peter Horn User talk 18:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem with - it's the parameters supplied to . But if you were to post your question at Template talk:Convert, they would direct you to Template:Convert. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not rounded off; 108.862 tonnes is exactly 120 short tons. If it'd been rounded by Convert, the decimals would've been chopped off, as they'd have been denoting a false precision. Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's nothing to do with this template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's nothing to do with this template. However, the degree of precision given is a little suspicious. I suspect that the original value for the weight was probably given in [short] tons (or possibly pounds), but since the article uses metric for the default units, it's possible that someone has entered a very (over?) precise value for kg to get the "right" value displayed for short tons. Entering something like  would produce "120 ST" - which seems a bit more sensible. Unfortunately, in the IE 201 Class article, the weight is not referenced so it is impossible to tell where the source for the weight is or what the original units were... Robevans123 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)