Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2005

Templates for common references
I have created a number of templates for common references:



Makes it easier to reference the book right each time.

Will add more, will refer to them here. &mdash;Morven 21:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here's one for a reference that I've been using extensively... slambo 16:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Industrial railway
I have created this article, industrial railway. It is fairly basic at the moment and could probably do with some additions, just wondering if anyone could add to it. G-Man 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I took a look, and it's a good start. Now let's expand it.  I've added mention of the railway at the Coors plant in Colorado as another example.  Also, I've added a todolist to the talk page where we can add further suggestions for improvement. slambo 15:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Class 1/2/3 vs. Class I/II/III
I've noticed that in some North American railway articles/templates we use the terms Class 1 railroad, Class 2 railroad, and Class 3 railroad, while in others we use Class I railroad, Class II railroad, and Class III railroad. I think we should pick either numbers or Roman numerals and use that in all articles, rather than having a mixture. My personal preference would be to use Class I/II/III since that's what the AAR uses, although I've seen Class 1/2/3 used enough that it's likely a valid alternative. I'd like to see what other people think. Comments? JYolkowski 02:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preference for either format, but standardization would seem to be a Good Thing (tm). As mentioned above, the AAR uses Roman numerals, but many of the state DOT agencies (among other official agencies) use numbers.  I've been using numbers just because it's easier to type.  However, since it's the AAR's classification scheme, I would vote for using Roman numerals here as well.  slambo 14:08, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections I'm going to start changing 1/2/3 to I/II/III as I get around to it. JYolkowski 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleaned up everything now, two months later (-: JYolkowski 02:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template list
You may have noticed User:Slambo/Train project templates showing up in a few categories today. Well, I got tired of searching for all of the template definitions that we have created for use in railroad related articles, so I made a list of them. Just building a list wouldn't show me what I wanted, so I added examples and parameters to the page and noted which categories each template will add an article to. I'm looking around to find out what other templates we're using and eventually plan to move this list out of my userspace into something like WikiProject Trains/Templates. If you know of one or more that aren't in the list, please add them. slambo 17:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't mention it here, but the template list is now at WikiProject Trains/Article templates. slambo 11:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Another resource for Texas research
I just read about the Texas Transportation Archive. From the project's About page:
 * "The Texas Transportation Archive, or the “TTA”, was born out of a desire to make available several large collections of photographs and manuscript material that chronicle the long and colorful history of transportation in Texas. These collections have heretofore been held privately, but are now offered here in a digital form that hopefully is easily accessible to any age group and at all computer skill levels. We have spent many years in the field doing research and collecting primary and secondary materials useful to the student of transportation history."

So, all you Texas researchers, you've got a whole lot more information to read and thousands more photos to view now. slambo 19:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

A newbie speaks
I'm willing to help in any way I can, but have thus far limited my attempts to editing out and clarifying some entries in the Steam Locomotive Teminology page. I'm still a bit awed by Wiki: and am not sure that I'm up to major editing on a page; that said, I'm willing to serve as a resource to help others. What qualifications I have are this: I've been involved in model railroading for about 45 years, on and off, and am conversant and knowledgeable in much of the major and minor arcana thereof. I've also been a licensed steam locomotive engineer, and spent 5 years working at an American railroad museum, hence have some familiarity with aspects of rail preservation, as well. Feel free to contact me at philjern [at] gmail.com with any questions.

LIRR a Class I?
See Talk:Class I railroad. --SPUI (talk) 23:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second level topics
Comment moved here from the main project page:
 * How about adding "Signaling" (Signalling in U.K.) as a secondary-level topic? TimeriderTech 20:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be covered under "Operations"? JYolkowski 22:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I got thrown by the U.K. definition of "Operations". In the U.S., the "Operations" department only operates the trains, and signaling is considered a separate department. Most U.S. railroads are divided into three major pieces: Operations, Track, and C&S (Communications and Signaling). TimeriderTech 04:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merging streetcar/tram and subway/metro?
See Talk:Metro. --SPUI (talk) 13:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's now some discussion about whether there should be a split between streetcars and higher-speed light rail. Both sides of the argument are at Talk:Streetcar; it would be nice to get more opinions. --SPUI (talk) 17:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong use of "and" when "&" is usually correct
One person stated that "and" should be used instead of "&" on all railroads. Problem is, the vast majority of railroads (at least in the U.S.) actually used "&", therefore using "and" is outright wrong. This also directly contradicts the statement that a railroad's commonly-used name should be used as the article title, not to mention that it should it at least be correct and accurate. Look at White Pass & Yukon Route for example &mdash; you can see right on the company's own logo that it is "&" not "and", yet the article is redirected to "and". People keep moving correct "&" articles to incorrect "and" titles. –radiojon 20:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)


 * I dispute that "and" is wrong. They may render it "&" on their rolling stock, but I'll bet you anything that all legal incorporation paperwork says "and". We don't use "&" because it is not the usual wikipedia convention to put abbreviations in titles, and that is all that the ampersand really is. Besides, it is very useful to have a consistent convention. You'll live. 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, read Naming conventions, where we are informed not to use '&' in article names. While it does not appear to actually cause a technical problem, best to confine its use to redirect pages. &mdash;Morven 20:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Using "and" isn't wrong just as much as using "&" isn't wrong. My point was that as a group, Wikipedia editors have come to the conclusion that we should use "and" in article titles.  Within the article text, "&" is perfectly fine, but remember to use the pipe in links to the articles or create redirects that use the "&" character.  For a counter-example, look at Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, Galena and Chicago Union Railroad and a number of others that follow the article naming convention that was agreed upon. slambo 20:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

A related convention is not using the serial comma in railway names, everyone seems ok with that.... Fawcett5 21:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It's now May 8, and I see more support for the use of "and" in the article title than I do for "&". In the spirit of finding concensus, I'll wait one more day before I move the page back to use "and" in the title. If there is anyone else who thinks it should be "&" in the title, now's the time to speak up. slambo 15:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Now it's May 9, and hearing more support for "and" than for "&", I'm moving the page back to its original name. slambo 17:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

"and" also seems preferable to me, unless for some reason the original charter or incorporation documents use "&". --SPUI (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Oldest railroads in North America
I've created this article, partly to dispel the myth of the Granite Railroad being the first (and have corrected the mentions of that). I haven't yet gone through and added all the railroads listed in the references; if anyone wants to jump in that would be great, especially if someone can determine whether any before the Granite Railroad evolved into common carriers with continuous operation. --SPUI (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal
How about a Wikiportal for Trains? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:37, 2005 May 16 (UTC)


 * Cool idea, assuming that enough people are interested in it to update it regularly. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of being bold, I've started the portal page (I'm building the stubs behind the redlinks now). I would be willing to keep it updated. slambo 13:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Slambo. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:39, 2005 May 16 (UTC)


 * Okay, there's a start. Comments?  Edits?  slambo 16:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to the portal. Already looking good! Fawcett5 18:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The Trains Wikiportal is live. I've set up initial processes to update the Featured article (Archive, Candidates), Featured picture (Archive, Candidates) and Did you know (Archive, Candidates) sections similar to the overall processes for these articles on the Main page, and I've added a couple of items for each of the three candidate pages to start things off. The other sections on the portal are pretty straightforward. I took the links from the project hierarchy box (as shown on the project page) for the links in the Where to start section. The only other section that I think we might want to add would be a "Today in rail transport history" section similar to the Selected anniversaries section on the main page. I haven't started that yet, but I wonder if there are any other ideas for sections that we might want to add to the portal or existing sections that we might want to change? slambo 14:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox - what years to use?
It's not usually obvious what years to use for the infobox. Yeah, if we had a separate page for each company, we could go from incorporation to death. But we don't (we often merge predecessors). Thus there really is no consistency between articles.

Here are the possibilities for the from date:
 * 1) Incorporation of the article title company
 * 2) Incorporation of the earliest predecessor (not counting turnpike companies and the like)
 * 3) Opening of the earliest predecessor

And for the end date, we have:
 * 1) Change of name or dissolution of the article title company
 * 2) End of operation on any lines (or present)
 * 3) Taken over by a larger company

As well as various options if the article title was not the last company covered in the article.

It seems that there are so many different possibilities that the dates are almost useless. See Talk:New York City Subway for one example. Can anyone convince me that there is a way to make it consistent, or just add to this discussion? --SPUI (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tried to stick to company creation and dissolution as the dates in an infobox. For example, on Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, the start date is 1859, the year that the company was first chartered (simply changing names, like ATSF did in 1863, does not imply a new company to me), and the end date is 1995 when the ATSF merged with BN to form BNSF, even though SFP actually owned the company for the last decade or so of the company's life. slambo 18:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately we're not going to have an article on every company. For instance, the Erie Railway and Erie Railroad (and the other names) are all in the same article, and for many a bunch of the predecessors are included. --SPUI (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:APC is becoming a problem.
He is continuing to upload images without attribution and include them on train pages. Repeated asking for this practice to cease does not appear to be helping. Be on your guard for this. &mdash;Morven 21:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Make that, IS a problem. I just reviewed a bunch of contributions and put one on wp:cp, but there are a bunch more that are not just unverified but definite copyvios that I don't have time to deal with right now.  If he's been repeatedly warned, then I suggest a 24 hr block for reflection. Fawcett5 22:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If he's keeping it up and ignoring queries, probably the best thing to do is to list his images for deletion. I think I'll put the other five in the BNSF article on WP:CP as well.  The Russian one should be fine since it was likely published in the Soviet Union long enough ago (see User:Quadell/copyright).  I believe that the 2-8-6-0 one was taken by Paul Eilenburger a sufficient time after 1923 that it might possibly be a problem.  I'll list that one on WP:PUI.  That should probably cover his railway-related contributions.  JYolkowski // talk 01:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed today that User:EASports has uploaded several BNSF photos (some of which are the same as the ones previously in the article), and tagged them as PermissionAndFairUse. While I'll trust him about the permission part, does anyone think any of these images would actually qualify as fair use?  If not, then the licence boils down to Permission, which are deletable now.  JYolkowski // talk 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw the images, but didn't really notice if they were the same as the originals. I'm sure I've got other photos of Heritage I and II that I took in my portfolio (just need to scan them), but I haven't seen any of the new Power Bar logo units yet.  If I can find suitable replacements from my own photography, I'll upload them. slambo 00:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me to look on commons:, and I found Image:BNSF 7663.jpg, Image:BNSF C44-9W 5518.jpg and Image:BNSF GP60B 346.jpg. Those might also come in handy; I'll have a look later.  JYolkowski // talk 01:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines on articles about steam railroad companies
I have been writing articles about railroad companies recently, and have come up with a set of guidelines. I'd like comments. --SPUI (talk) 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assumptions
First, a couple assumptions I hope we can agree on:
 * 1) We should have a station listing for every line that has existed - thus every station that has existed should be listed on at least one article. (Whether there should be an article on each station is not something I will go into here.)
 * 2) We should mention every railroad that began construction.
 * 3) We should not have a separate article on every reorganization of a company.

I propose the following:

Level of detail
There is a rough hierarchy of companies and lines.
 * First come minor branch lines - example: Harvard Branch Railroad.
 * Then come trunk lines, which may have had many branches and become a system in their own right - example: Fitchburg Railroad, Boston and Providence Railroad, Providence and Worcester Railroad.
 * Then come major systems, some of which evolved from a single line - example: Old Colony Railroad.
 * Finally come merged systems that did not begin as a single line - example: Penn Central (not fleshed out like the other examples).

Branch line articles obviously include information only on the branch and its immediate surroundings.

Trunk line articles include a station listing of the original main line(s). Included is a list of branches, with general information, usually rounded to the nearest year. Full detail is provided for the main line.

System articles, when they evolved from an original line(s), include information on that line similar to a trunk line article. Otherwise, lines and systems that were taken over are described in general terms, without listing all branches.

An interesting problem arises when a modern-day line does not follow the same path as the original company. For instance, the Fairmount Line is most but not all of the old Midland Railroad, and the rest of the Midland is now the Franklin Line. Here, the history could be in the one article while the station listing is in the one about the modern line.

Naming conventions
Each company should be at its last name before it was merged into a larger system. Disambiguation should have the state name in parentheses, not "of State" appended, unless the latter was the common or official name.

Infobox years
As the infobox says "years of operation", the opening year of the first section of original main line should be used. In cases like the Old Colony Railroad, the Boston and Providence Railroad opened before it, but was not leased until later - the B&P's date is not used. The end date is the last time trains ran over the main line. If there is ambiguity, a history section can be linked to, like on New York City Subway.

For a merged system, use the date of merger if there was no original main line.

Comments
Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In general, this sounds like a good guideline. I would add a list of company officers to the information that should be in the article. As a minimum, I think the names of the presidents and/or CEOs and their years in office (like we have on Southern Pacific Railroad or on Pennsylvania Railroad) should be included. For short lists where we don't have articles on the individual people yet (like on Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad), we can include a little more biographical information.

Also, a system map should be included on railroad articles. A reader living in Frankfurt or Perth (any of them) might not know where Rochelle, Illinois, is and might not even know where Illinois is within the United States (assuming that the reader knows that Illinois is a US state in the first place). Ideally, the maps would show how the railroad relates to the surrounding political divisions (like on Canadian Pacific Railway or on Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad). Where the system isn't big enough to cross many borders, an inset style map (like on Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railroad) should be used.

We've discussed article naming elsewhere, more than once. I'm more in favor of using shorter common names for article titles, but as redirects are cheap, I'm not going to stick on this point.

I've been meaning to put together a WikiProject Trains style guide for some time that would include guidelines on what information should be listed in railroad-related articles. Looks like we've got a start at such a guide here, providing there's enough consensus... slambo 10:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Trains Collaboration of the Week/Month
We're all adding and editing trains articles on our own, but it seems to me that we might have a better chance at building up feature-quality articles if we do a collaboration of the week like other WikiProjects do. Several of us are helping out on Indian Railways right now which is the current India Collaboration of the Week. How much support is there among us on WikiProject Trains to do a Trains Collaboration of the Week? slambo 14:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support it if enough other people are interested. JYolkowski // talk 23:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maps
I'd like some comments on the maps I've made for New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad and Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines. These are meant to be general locator maps rather than detailed system maps, which would ideally go in the history section. --SPUI (talk) 23:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * They look pretty good. The only suggestion I have would be to use smaller dots for the cities.  JYolkowski // talk 22:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've gone with a different type of map on New York and Putnam Railroad - this is probably the type I'll be doing for detailed maps. --SPUI (talk) 6 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Arrangements between railroads
If anyone could help expand this article, that would be great. --SPUI (talk) 22:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD for defect detector
I started this article earlier this week and it's now listed on WP:VFD by an anonymous editor whose only edits were today. Please take a moment to vote. AdThanksVance. slambo July 3, 2005 18:54 (UTC)
 * Other users have noted that the VFD nominator, 203.98.57.97, has made several bad faith VFD nominations and should be sanctioned for such behavior. For more information, see Votes for deletion/Doug Kammerer, Votes for deletion/Storkyrkan and Votes for deletion/Tobias Fornier, Antique. slambo July 4, 2005 00:04 (UTC)

Proposal to merge train spotting and railroad buff into railfan
A proposal has been made several days ago to merge these three articles with the result landing in Railfan. There has been no disucssion on it other than the original proposals and comments between myself and Thryduulf. I'd like to get a more complete consensus on this, especially in merging train spotting into railfan. Please visit the discussion and make your views known. I would be more comfortable with the merge if more editors agreed; unless I hear otherwise before next Tuesday (July 26, which allows for five days of discussions), they will be merged. slambo 20:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done the merge and I see no further comments from anyone, so I'll assume that everyone agrees. If I'm wrong, please speak up on Talk:Railfan.  slambo 02:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Deletions on commons
I encourage all to vote against ignorance at commons:Template:Deletion requests. Take the time to understand the point of these, and realize that they are useful. --SPUI (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Project membership talk page template
Take a look at the template WikiProject Wisconsin. This box is now added at the top of the talk pages for articles that are considered part of WikiProject Wisconsin. The thought occurred to me that as we create articles for the more esoteric aspects of the railroad industry, we should have a similar template on the talk page to indicate the article's membership as a part of this project. For a first draft, we could make it look like this (using the same colors as we use in the infobox and on the portal)...

Thoughts? slambo 15:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice, but I wonder if it really adds much value beyond good old rail-stub.... Cheers, Fawcett5 16:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It would help on articles that have gone beyond stub status. When they're no longer stubs, we remove Rail-stub, losing that association. Putting a notice like this one on the talk page would keep the project association in place. slambo 18:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I just found another example of a similar notice for WikiProject Philosophy: philosophy. slambo 02:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Indiana just created another similar template, WikiProject Indiana and started putting it on talk pages like Talk:Monon Railroad, Talk:Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad and Talk:List of Indiana railroads. So, with the growing use by other projects, is there any objection to creating WikiProject Trains based on the sample above (but maybe with a lighter background color)? slambo 22:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I hate Wikiproject talk page templates, as I see that an article has a blue talk page and want to see what discussion has taken place about the article, only to find a template. --SPUI (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well after not hearing any other objections in several months, I went ahead and created one. I also created a couple membership templates that we can use on our user pages:


 * Slambo (Speak) 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Trains featured images and articles
I'd like to encourage everyone to nominate and participate in the voting for the featured article and image that appear on the Trains portal. There have been very few nominations from other editors, which leaves me to pick, sometimes arbitrarily, what articles and images are featured. I've tried to select features that are international in scope, but I have no way of investigating all of the articles and images in the database, so I will sometimes fall back on some of my own work (but I always put my own work through the nomination process to give others a chance to object or support first). We currently display one feature article and image per week; I would love if we had enough material for a different feature daily, but I don't forsee that happening any time soon.

So, please nominate and vote for the portal features. AdThanksVance. slambo 18:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I have received absolutely no responses, and there has been no further activity from any other editor on the aforementioned pages (other than a barnstar added to my talk page last night), am I to infer that everyone trusts my judgment to select appropriate content for the portal? I am not familiar with every rail transport article or image on WP, and I would like it if other editors pointed out some of the better content (which I might not yet have seen, especially if its subject location is outside the United States).  Unless I get input from other editors, I will continue to make the selections as I have been since May.  slambo 18:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disambig link bypasses
Periodically, I've been going through some of the common names for rail topics where the common name is a disambig article here, and pointing the links to the correct targets. For example, many editors are using Southern Railway and not distinguishing between Southern Railway (UK) and Southern Railway (US). Great Northern Railway is another common disambig fix.

Rather than try to remember all of the disambig pages that need to be checked on a regular basis for links that should be directed elsewhere, I've started a list (and I know at least SPUI has seen the page and helped out already) at User:Slambo/Disambig. The more I built the list, the more I thought it would be good to move it out here to the project as a periodic maintenance task. I invite the community to join in and add other common disambig link bypasses for rail transport topics (there are probably many more we can add based on reporting marks). There is one redirect on the list right now, Amtrack. I've seen way too many places that use this misspelling, so I check it along with the disambigs.

Any others that we should be checking regularly? Are there any objections to making this an official project maintenance task by moving the page to something like WikiProject/Disambig repair? Is there anything else I missed that absolutely should be included? slambo 19:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if anyone's noticed, but the tracking page is now at WikiProject Trains/Todo/Disambig as an official task. slambo 15:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Unverified source on track image
While updating the portal this morning, I noticed something interesting. This article uses the image shown at right; the image is used here in the train topics infobox, as can be seen on the train article. Since the image was used outside of WP, I took a look at the image page here and found that it has been tagged with unverified since January 8 2005. Does anyone have the source information on this image or an alternate image in case this one is deleted as the unverified template says it will be? slambo 11:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the uploader says it is "my own photo" and in User:G-Man/photo_gallery he says his photos are PD, so I fixed the tag on the above image. It appears that "bakutoday.net" took the image from WP, not the other way around! --Janke | Talk 12:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for checking further and retagging it. Looking at it again, I don't know why I didn't see the uploader's information (Doh!). slambo 12:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Another untagged rail image
Image:Trbx88.jpg (at right) has no information on it's source. It was uploaded by on October 10 (the upload was the first edit by this user name). I've left a welcome note on the user's page with comments requesting source information and a license tag, but I haven't seen anything from this user yet. The image illustrates a new stub, created by the same user, for Timken Roller Bearing Company. Anyone else know anything about this image? I'd hate to see it disappear. AdThanksVance. slambo 15:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Two weeks later, and still no update to indicate the source or license. I've left another message at the uploader's talk page requesting source and license information.  I hate to do this, but it's time to put the untagged template on it.  slambo 15:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It was speedied earlier today for the reasons cited above. slambo 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Rail transport modelling needs more info...
... especially about the history of model railroads. I also created a new section, "Landscaping" - very important to many railroad modellers. Please expand as you see fit, thanks! --Janke | Talk 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia
A gentleman has contacted the Wikipedia help desk searching information on this topic. I would be grateful if anyone could help him.

I linked to your site from the Conrail Cyclopedia site. I don't know if you can help me but I'll try any way. First off: My quest has nothing whatever to do with model railroading! I'm looking into the way the railroads ordered stuff back at the turn of the century(1900s). As an example, If it was decided by the "powers that be" to run a telegraph/signal line from one town (station) to another I've been told by an old time railroader that the "STORES DEPARTMENTS" were the ones that supplied the required materials (i.e.. poles, wire, insulators, signaling devices, telegraph stuff, etc.). He further told me that they would consult a source known as the "Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia" that told them what was available and where to order it. He further told me that the cyclopedia was used by different rail lines and was not unique to any one line. Now, I'm trying to find a copy of this "Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia" to look at. I want to see who they would order the supplies from. I know that this is a crazy request to a fellow such as yourself who seems to be more involved with rolling stock. Would you have any suggestions as to where I might locate this resource? I've tried the Smithsonian, various libraries and many rail fan sites with no success. I'd appreciate any info you can provide. By the way, I'm not a school kid doing a term paper. I'm a 76 year old retired telephone engineer who's father put 40 years into the Santa Fe as fireman, brakeman, electrician, and a few more jobs. He brought power into the Dallas/Ft Worth yards when they opened up. I'm just doing a little personal research.

Thanks for any help you can give him.

Capitalistroadster 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Amtrak infobox
I'd like some comments on the infobox I just added to Adirondack - is it useful? Should anything be added or removed? --SPUI (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

British narrow gauge
Hi, this is mainly to introduce myself to the group. I'm working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of British narrow gauge railways, a subject near and dear to my heart. I'm currently working on a List of British Narrow Gauge Railways which threatens to be a long-term project. I'd welcome comments and assistance - already the page is too long and needs splitting. I'm also adding to various railway-specific pages (Corris Railway, Plynlimon and Hafan Tramway and others) and contributing to some railway modelling pages (16mm scale, Garden railway).

I'd like to bring my work under the umbrella of this WikiProject. Does anyone object if I join this fine group? Gwernol 06:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Welcome! That's an interesting specialty that I haven't seen championed by another editor yet.  One nitpicky thing that I noticed really quickly is that measurements for feet and inches should not use the ' and " characters but rather the abbreviations ft and in (and if you want to link the first instance of each,  ft  and  in ); be sure to include &amp;nbsp; between the number and tne unit specifier.  See Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for more info. Slambo (Speak)  11:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I figured I'd need to make that change. The usual convention in books on this subject is ' and ", but I realize the Wiki convention is ft and in. I also ought to include the metric equivalent after the imperial measurement. I will attend to this. Best, Gwernol 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool. BTW, I used an item from Ffestiniog Railway for the "Did you know" section of the Trains Wikiportal today. Slambo (Speak)  16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)